Which is more dangerous?

MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Which is more dangerous?

Sam Harris in "The End of Faith" seemed to be saying Islamic Fundamentalism is more dangerous than Christian. I agree the Islamic Fundie is MUCH more likely to be a terrorist, however, I feel the Christian Fundies are a much bigger threat to our freedom. The reason? Islamic Fundamentalists have effectively zero chance of gaining political power in the US. Christian fundamentalists already have it - they are effectively in control of the Republican party nowadays. By the way, on many of the controversial issues (abortion, gay rights, pornography, women's rights) they would agree with each other.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


FundamentallyFlawed
FundamentallyFlawed's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-02
User is offlineOffline
I agree with this point. It

I agree with this point. It is easy to present Islamic extremists as a threat, as they are by far more violent... the effects of their extremism is more tangible. Images of suicide bombers and gun-toting fanatics has a profound psychological effect.

Christian fundies pose a much more subtle threat, yet it is probably more dangerous to America than foreign extremists. While they very rarely resort to violent methods, they seek to undermine the secular ideals our nation was founded upon. In addition, they pose a much more severe threat to the rights of many American citizens.

Perhaps the biggest problem is that there is a certain degree of tolerance for their extremism among mainstream Christians. Although they may not agree with their radically fundamentalist views, they still somehow believe that attacking the fundie ideaology is an attack against Christianity in general


Genesis c22v12
Genesis c22v12's picture
Posts: 30
Joined: 2006-11-26
User is offlineOffline
And besides, Christians are

And besides, Christians are calm now, but they've got what it takes to become dangerous: irrationalism. If in any moment of history the come back to the belief that adversaries must be killed, they will do it, and have a nice night sleep.

Disrespectful of Religion


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
I'd bet everything I'll own

I'd bet everything I'll own for the next ten years that if a bunch of countries all decided to invade the US, there'd be Christian fundie militias running around with AK47s, AR15s, pipe bombs and stolen military hardware and it would make the Islamic terrorists look like moderately disobedient children playing with matches. Except that if that did happen, everything I'll own for the next ten years would be destroyed.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Here is where a nice clip

Here is where a nice clip from Brigitte Gabriel should go. Search her on youtube. I'm putting her on my 'who I'd like to meet' section.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
The moment the Christians

The moment the Christians actually start following the bible (like a select few do) is the moment we're all fucked. Some Muslims actually take their holy book seriously, and that is why you saw 9-11. If Christians took theirs as similar you'd see 9-11's on Islamic soil all the time.

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
We'd all be getting stoned

We'd all be getting stoned to death - at least those of us who were once Christians.


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Unless the OT doesn't count,

Unless the OT doesn't count, then they have to figure out new laws and new punishments.

Regardless of where a threat comes from, religion, corruption, crime, or shitheads, I want to be ready to take on the challenge in any way I can.


Insidium Profundis
Posts: 295
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
What a stupid question. On

What a stupid question. On one hand you've got a group of imponent pederasts who are fighting their hardest to hold on to archaic values which are being swept away readily. On the other, you have people who will give their lives for the destruction of the infidels.

The worst Christian fundamentalism can do is slow down (but not even stop) our scientific and intellectual progress, whereas the worst Islamic fundamentalism can do is to overwhelm and engulf the west, stifling freedom permanently.

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
How would the Moslem fundies

How would the Moslem fundies ever defeat the west? - we have way superior technology and even numbers (and, if need be, nuclear weapons enough to wipe out the Islamic world many times over)

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Insidium Profundis
Posts: 295
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:How would

MattShizzle wrote:
How would the Moslem fundies ever defeat the west? - we have way superior technology and even numbers (and, if need be, nuclear weapons enough to wipe out the Islamic world many times over)

The European population is becoming predominantly Muslim. Furthermore, Muslim nations control the lifeblood of our economy: oil.

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Our addiction to oil is

Our addiction to oil is mostly our fault and we could kick the habit so to speak if we really tried. I have heard of the argument that Muslims are going to have more influence in Europe, but I have my doubts because of the people and other thing the people say on the subject.

Once a person making the claim quoted the idea, "every muslim isn't a terrorist, but all terrorist are muslim" he didn't know it was from ann coulter, but that is something she at least agrees with. I'm not saying the idea is wrong because of who is saying it, but I have to wonder why they would say it.

To me it sounds like you're saying because Muslims could take over europe they’ll be able to harm the US. The oil is something in which they have us by the balls, but like I was saying before that is mostly our fault.

Also economic interest is something all nations and people have. The resource gives them some power, but really no more then anyone else with a resource people want. Think about women, men, and sex. Men and women both have something to gain in sex, but if a women makes it harder to get sex then the man will value it more. Such a thing can develop with anything. Of course I wonder if I could turn around that sex thing, but that’s another topic... The point is they only have as much power as we give them on that front, um people in the middle east.

Yes demographics can change, but it will take a lot do de-secularize the governments...


Tomcat
Posts: 346
Joined: 2006-10-24
User is offlineOffline
ZOMG HOW CAN YOU GUYS NOT

ZOMG HOW CAN YOU GUYS NOT SEE!! THE SPAGGHETTI MONSTER IS ALMOST UPON US. ALL THE NAIVE HUMANS ON EARTH AR WRAPPED UP IN THEIR PETTY FIGHTING WHILE THE NOODLES ARE SLOWLY APPROACHING TO FONDLE US

FORECAST FOR U.S.A: CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF MEATBALLS

PREPARE FOR THE ARMIES OF DOOMSAUCE

Srsly folks, Muslims are > than Christians on the threat list. Just that Christians are stealthy mofos and may seem a little more devious. Get real

The Enlightenment wounded the beast, but the killing blow has yet to land...


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
From a merely tactical view

From a merely tactical view point the enemy you don't see coming is always more dangerous.


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Insidium Profundis

Insidium Profundis wrote:

The European population is becoming predominantly Muslim.

Really? What do you base this on?


Asmoday
Asmoday's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2006-11-20
User is offlineOffline
Iran has ZERO restrictions

Iran has ZERO restrictions palced on tehir scientists regarding stem cell research. Iran's government is a theocracy.

Also, I heard that the moslem faith is teh only faith that has to potential to change, and adapt.... spiritual proof has to be realized..

Oh yeah..

Currently a Christian Backed Whitehouse is in control of the worlds most powerfull militaries... know whats wrong with this? Israel is getting a "pass go, collect $200" for the next two years. So the next two years are expecially dangerous.. That will be the time when Israel will feel most free to act in their perceived pre-emptive manners..

"Your vision will become clear only when you look into your heart. Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside awakens."

-Carl G. Jung


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:How would the Moslem

Quote:
How would the Moslem fundies ever defeat the west? - we have way superior technology and even numbers (and, if need be, nuclear weapons enough to wipe out the Islamic world many times over)

Well, I'm not saying that it is necessarily going to happen, but it is possible. There have been plenty of "superior" nations who have fallen, although none have had literally enough bombs to destroy the world.

It's cliche, but I think it's worth looking at the Roman empire after it wasn't considered the Roman empire any more. In a simplistic way, we say that the empire "fell" after the death of its last emperor. In reality, the infrastructure remained and a different style of government gradually evolved for centuries, while the people continued to live and pay taxes and have sex and make new little Roman babies.

When people talk about Muslim fundies taking over the United States, I think they're over-reacting. Although it could happen eventually, there are just too many WASPS for anything like that to happen now, or in the near future. What could happen is there could be a large enough coalition of Muslim, oil controlling nations to exert considerable pressure on the U.S. and potentially shape foreign policy to the point that America would not be "the" only superpower. (I'm touching on politics, here, but the Rethuglicans aren't stupid. They know the danger of a united Arab front. Why do you think the U.S. works so hard to keep the region destabilized?)

Having said all that, here's why I think Christians are (cough) fundamentally more dangerous than Muslims. I don't believe there will be a coalition of Muslim countries because the radical elements of Islam have a nasty habit of blowing each other up because they don't like the color of the veils some other radical group makes their women wear. Christians, on the other hand, (western Christians, at least...) overlook theological differences as long as they get their laws passed. I haven't heard Pat Robertson suggest that protestants should start fire bombing Catholic churches. At most, he'll suggest that protestants should try to "save" the misled Catholics, but as long as they vote the right way, I think all is forgiven in the end.

I think the main thing to realize, though, is that in this world where there is no god, no chosen people, and no manifest destiny, might makes right, in as far as who gets to decide what the weak have to do. Islam is growing, and the Muslim population is growing, while Christian populations are stagnating. It is very possible that one day, after we're long dead, the world population will be predominantly Muslim. If that happens, then you can expect the behaviors of the competing religions to change drastically, with Christianity being the downtrodden religion and Christians being the martyrs for their faith.

It's all about the circumstances, not the religion.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Christen
Christen's picture
Posts: 75
Joined: 2006-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Right now, both sides are a

Right now, both sides are a threat to freedom, but I think the Islamic fundies are much more dangerous. Unlike the Christian fundies, the Islamic fundies abide by their religious text word for word.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I think one of the funniest

I think one of the funniest things about humans is that people who agree find ways to disagree. The cool thing is that everybody seems to agree that both Christianity and Islam are fundamentally dangerous. I sense that we're talking about different kinds of danger.

If we're talking about my individual life, then Islamic extremists are much more dangerous. I'm very unlikely to be killed by a Christian, although if I took up performing abortions, the odds would go up substantially.

I actually see Christianity as a broader, more sinister threat. If the Muslims manage to kill a few thousand people this year in terror attacks, that's pretty crappy, but if the Christians manage to get a million babies born in Africa because they preach about how awful condoms are, and then 300,000 of those babies end up dying of AIDS or malnutrition, I would say that the latent danger of Christianity is worse.

There are arguments on the other side, of course. Lots of Muslim women kill themselves each year because some dickwad took a picture of them without their veil and posted it on the internet, or worse, filmed them having sex or something. Lots of Muslim women are killed by family members after being raped. Honor killing.

Me, I'm willing to go with either side. If somebody handed me a magic wand and said I could rid the world of Islam or Christianity, I think I'd choose Christianity, but the decision would be criticized as selfish, and it would probably be a just criticism. I've never been raised Muslim, so I can't know what it's like, or how repressive it is.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: I've

Hambydammit wrote:
I've never been raised Muslim, so I can't know what it's like, or how repressive it is.

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Well, that just speaks for

Well, that just speaks for itself, doesn't it?

Geez. I really just had a moment of depression. The Christians have killed so many people, oppressed so many more, and generally made life annoying for those they didn't kill or oppress. It depresses me to think that it's just religion lite.

I want it all to go away.

And they say atheists are the evil, self deluded ones. Poor, poor ignorant fools. I really do feel sorry for anybody who has to go to Jesus Camp or Allah Camp.

I'm going to go have some southern food now. Barbecue always makes me feel better. Maybe a beer too.

pffffftthththth!!

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


FundamentallyFlawed
FundamentallyFlawed's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-02
User is offlineOffline
Wow... that video is

Wow... that video is depressing. That little girl has obviously been spoon-fed that vile crap, yet she is praised as being "devout".

The saddest part is that she will probably never get the help she needs to fix those wounds. I can't even begin to fathom how anyone could warp a child's mind like that.


Insidium Profundis
Posts: 295
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote:Insidium

KSMB wrote:
Insidium Profundis wrote:

The European population is becoming predominantly Muslim.

Really? What do you base this on?

I cannot find the relevant studies at the moment, but I will search for them. The European population has been declining (current average birthrates are considerably below the 2.1 necessary for sustaining the population). Europe depends on immigrants and their children to keep up the birth rates. Most of the immigrants are Islamic, and do not become secularized because they tend to live amongst other unassimilated Muslims. Since their birth rates are higher than those of Europeans, in 45 years it seems reasonable that the majority of the population will be Muslim.

I hold this belief tentatively, though.

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I read this recently. I

I read this recently. I believe it was in "The End of Faith."


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Muslim fundamentalists are

Muslim fundamentalists are plenty dangerous, but I think they pose less a threat to me than the Christians in my own country.

Statistically speaking, I stand a VERY small chance of being killed by a Muslim terrorist. What the religious right and fundamental Christians in my own country do affect me much more severely and directly.

Muslim terrorist don't present a direct threat to my civil liberties, except when their percieved threat is used to curtail those freedoms in the name of "liberty" and "security". Fundamentalist Christianity on the other hand has a DIRECT impact on my every day life and civil freedoms.

Worldwide, I'd say the Muslim issue is more pressing. At home in the states, Christians are my concern first. Your mileage will vary by geography and political climate.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Christianity is a threat

Christianity is a threat because Islam is a threat and Christians want to crush Islam (even if they don't admit it). Christians control far more military resources than Muslims, and until Christians stop fighting Muslims (which'll be the day one or the other is destroyed), the Christians are a bigger threat.


Insidium Profundis
Posts: 295
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote:Christianity is

Zhwazi wrote:
Christianity is a threat because Islam is a threat and Christians want to crush Islam (even if they don't admit it). Christians control far more military resources than Muslims, and until Christians stop fighting Muslims (which'll be the day one or the other is destroyed), the Christians are a bigger threat.

And yet the Christians are fighting on the side of western democracy and enlightenment whereas the Muslims are fighting against it (looking purely at the key players here: the United States/NATO vs Islamic fundamentalist factions).

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Insidium Profundis wrote:And

Insidium Profundis wrote:
And yet the Christians are fighting on the side of western democracy and enlightenment whereas the Muslims are fighting against it (looking purely at the key players here: the United States/NATO vs Islamic fundamentalist factions).

First of all that's irrelevant to who is the greater threat. Second, Christians are fighting to reverse democracy and enlightenment in case you haven't noticed. GWB wouldn't be issuing executive orders and gutting habeus corpus if he gave a damn about democracy.


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Hambydammit

Sapient wrote:
Hambydammit wrote:
I've never been raised Muslim, so I can't know what it's like, or how repressive it is.


Christians do this same bullshit with their young. They tell them that whoever sins is going to hell. Not only the Jews, but anyone that has not accepted Jesus. I'm sure Muslims don't care for xtians just as much but it is the Jews they really have it in for, no?


Insidium Profundis
Posts: 295
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
MarthaSplatterhead

MarthaSplatterhead wrote:
Christians do this same bullshit with their young. They tell them that whoever sins is going to hell. Not only the Jews, but anyone that has not accepted Jesus. I'm sure Muslims don't care for xtians just as much but it is the Jews they really have it in for, no?

Equating Christian indoctrination (which, usually, threatens others with a painful afterlife or deems some as inherently immoral) with Muslim indoctrination (which suggests to strap on a few bombs and go into an Israeli discoteque) is intellectually dishonest.

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.


Insidium Profundis
Posts: 295
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote:First of all

Zhwazi wrote:
First of all that's irrelevant to who is the greater threat. Second, Christians are fighting to reverse democracy and enlightenment in case you haven't noticed. GWB wouldn't be issuing executive orders and gutting habeus corpus if he gave a damn about democracy.

The greater threat? What exactly is the greater threat? Do you believe that the Christian right has any real chance of demolishing democracy as you seem to be suggesting? He gives a damn about the liberal democratic society in which he and his Christian comrades reside. I'm sure that if he could, he would try to make everyone in this nation Christian, but he cannot and will not.

Note: you cannot use the Patriot Act as evidence that Christians are trying to make us into a theocracy. It's a security measure that is somewhat authoritarian, but it is not inherently theocratic.

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Insidium Profundis wrote:The

Insidium Profundis wrote:
The greater threat? What exactly is the greater threat?

The one the poses the greater (probability of causing injury) x (potential to cause injury) is the greater threat.

Quote:
Do you believe that the Christian right has any real chance of demolishing democracy as you seem to be suggesting?

Well if the opposite of democracy is nondemocratic appointing of rulers, explain why we don't elect the heads of the ATF, FBI, NSA, CIA, FCC, FDA, et cetera. This is a short list of the agencies that truly rule our lives. Congress is democratically elected, yes. Their major function is to make more and more agencies to do their work for them (which are nondemocratic). Can they demolish democracy? Not openly, no. But they don't have to do it openly to do it.

Quote:
He gives a damn about the liberal democratic society in which he and his Christian comrades reside. I'm sure that if he could, he would try to make everyone in this nation Christian, but he cannot and will not.

He does not give a damn about liberal democracy. He gives a damn about him and his Christian comrades and the patch of dirt on which they reside. He'll be "pro-America" whether that America is democratic, fascist, theocratic, socialist, a constitutional republic, it's not relevant, people will love their country and stand up for it just because it's "their" country, anything else is irrelevant.

Quote:
Note: you cannot use the Patriot Act as evidence that Christians are trying to make us into a theocracy. It's a security measure that is somewhat authoritarian, but it is not inherently theocratic.

I never mentioned theocracy. We don't have to have a theocracy to fight religious wars. If the US Government can draft me to go fight it's stupid little wars against burquaheads, they're the greater threat, irrelevant of whether it's a democratic or theocratic or republican war, I don't give a shit. The US Government controlled by Christians is far more likely to draft me to have me killed by Islamofundies than the Islamofundies are to kill me on their own. That's my analysis.


BarkAtTheMoon
Rational VIP!
BarkAtTheMoon's picture
Posts: 85
Joined: 2006-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: Well if the

Zhwazi wrote:

Well if the opposite of democracy is nondemocratic appointing of rulers, explain why we don't elect the heads of the ATF, FBI, NSA, CIA, FCC, FDA, et cetera. This is a short list of the agencies that truly rule our lives. Congress is democratically elected, yes. Their major function is to make more and more agencies to do their work for them (which are nondemocratic). Can they demolish democracy? Not openly, no. But they don't have to do it openly to do it.

The heads of government agencies aren't supposed to be elected positions and shouldn't be. However, they are democratically appointed. The President nominates someone and Congress confirms or rejects the nomination. Checks and balances prevail. The fact that our current administration and Congress are a bunch of asshats is a seperate issue with a seperate solution, shown Nov 7. Do you really want to be voting for a 1,000 different positions you know very little about choosing between people you've never heard of every November so that all manner of state and federal leadership positions, that could otherwise be applied for and filled like a normal job, are elected? There's already a number of state positions, like Register of Wills for example, that I could give a rusty fuck about that I have to vote for now.

As far as the original question goes, Christianity is by far the greater current threat to me as an American. I posted the numbers a while back on IG about the likelihood of being killed by an Islamic terrorist attack. Even adding in a few thousand for troops killed in Iraq, a very generous estimate of Western, including US & all of Europe, deaths in the last 30 years or so would likely be under 10,000 and certainly no more than 15,000. Total. At 10,000 that's a few hundred per year and is only skewed that high by 9/11 & the war. By comparison, the better part of a 100 people die each year from lightning strikes in the US. Over 40,000 people a year die from car accidents in the US and millions more are involved and/or injured in accidents. The biggest effect terrorism has ever had on the average American was the economic hit after 9/11, which even affected me personal and led to me struggling for work for over a year. Hell, until 9/11 the most deadly terrorist attack in America was committed by a fucking Roman Catholic.

Christianity attacks issues personal to me on a daily basis in America. An overwhelming majority of Christians elect an overwhelming majority of Christian politicians, many of which would love nothing more than to revoke each and every one of our citizenships for being atheists. They continue to make assaults on education and Constitutional rights all the time, and due to the ineptitude of our current government influence the above mentioned agencies in a negative way. Since the odds of me being killed by either Christians or Muslims for religious reasons are infinitesimally small, I'll worry about the Christians more.

So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth;
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth!
- Eric Idle, from The Galaxy Song


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I do agree it's not right

I do agree it's not right that certain agencies (ie the FCC) can effectively make laws when they were never elected. I think about the FCC especially - they basically are restricting freedom of speech.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Insidium Profundis

Insidium Profundis wrote:
MarthaSplatterhead wrote:
Christians do this same bullshit with their young. They tell them that whoever sins is going to hell. Not only the Jews, but anyone that has not accepted Jesus. I'm sure Muslims don't care for xtians just as much but it is the Jews they really have it in for, no?

Equating Christian indoctrination (which, usually, threatens others with a painful afterlife or deems some as inherently immoral) with Muslim indoctrination (which suggests to strap on a few bombs and go into an Israeli discoteque) is intellectually dishonest.


Tell that to the dead abortion doctors. You remind me of some insensitive militant know-it-all. Please understand there are not only black and white points in these issues. I was referring to the little girl in the video. I didn't see any bombs attached to her. In the Vietnam war children were put to the same task but not for a god. I was also talking about the brainwashing part of what they did to the little girl and others like her.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
BarkAtTheMoon wrote:The

BarkAtTheMoon wrote:
The heads of government agencies aren't supposed to be elected positions and shouldn't be. However, they are democratically appointed. The President nominates someone and Congress confirms or rejects the nomination. Checks and balances prevail.

Assuming Congress is actually doing it's job and not putting on a show where they plan on just giving whoever the president nominates the position to prevent more of their time from being wasted repeating the process and actually doing something...then you still have the problem of Congressmen that don't represent their constitutents.

Quote:
The fact that our current administration and Congress are a bunch of asshats is a seperate issue with a seperate solution, shown Nov 7. Do you really want to be voting for a 1,000 different positions you know very little about choosing between people you've never heard of every November so that all manner of state and federal leadership positions, that could otherwise be applied for and filled like a normal job, are elected?

Yes. It'll show people, every election, how many people control aspects of their life that they have no control over because of that bureaucrat whose name is on the ballot. If showing the entire voting public a list of all the agencies and commissions and bureaus that control their life does not do something to tell them how unfree they really are, nothing will. It also has the advantage of only targeting the relevant portion of the public (that being the voters).

Quote:
There's already a number of state positions, like Register of Wills for example, that I could give a rusty fuck about that I have to vote for now.

Who's forcing you to vote for the position?


BarkAtTheMoon
Rational VIP!
BarkAtTheMoon's picture
Posts: 85
Joined: 2006-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote:Assuming

Zhwazi wrote:

Assuming Congress is actually doing it's job and not putting on a show where they plan on just giving whoever the president nominates the position to prevent more of their time from being wasted repeating the process and actually doing something...then you still have the problem of Congressmen that don't represent their constitutents.

Well, yeah. Like I said, the problem is with the elected officials in Congress and the White House. And if the elected officials are that shitty for major, high profile races, how bad do you think they'd be for lesser known jobs requiring specific skill sets?

Why bother even having elected officials at all? Why not take it a step further and just have a caretaker head of each agency and every decision from every part of the government that's ever needed to be made is nationally voted on? Then the entire nation could completely grind to a halt, the economy would collapse as people spend 24/7 voting, millions would die, and total anarchy would prevail as society reverts back to the hunter/gatherer Stone Age. Sounds good, huh?

Quote:

Yes. It'll show people, every election, how many people control aspects of their life that they have no control over because of that bureaucrat whose name is on the ballot. If showing the entire voting public a list of all the agencies and commissions and bureaus that control their life does not do something to tell them how unfree they really are, nothing will. It also has the advantage of only targeting the relevant portion of the public (that being the voters).

Well, that's one way to accomplish the goal of educating people about the government. This is extremely impractical, however. I voted on the way home from work this election, at around 5:30, 15 minutes in and out and home a bit after six to make dinner. Multiply by a few hundred the positions to vote for and the time it takes to vote, and I'm in there an hour or two or more. Lines, which are hours long in some areas now, would be outrageous and the vote would take a month to get everyone through, and people who may have been interested in voting now just wouldn't vote because of the hassle. With voter turnout embarassingly low in the States anyway, that would crush future turnouts and would easily allow special interest groups, like Conservative Christian groups for example, to rally their people and basically stage a hostile takeover of the government.

Also, just because a government agency exists, doesn't mean they make people less free. Some maybe do, most don't and most will hardly ever directly affect your life. Here's the federal government in a nutshell from the federal budget:
Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of the Interior, Department of Justice, Department of Labor, Department of State and Other Programs, Department of Transportation, Department of the Treasury, Department of Veterans Affairs, Corps of Engineers—Civil Works, Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, Small Business Administration,
Social Security Administration, Other Agencies.

Are you qualified to know who should run each of those agencies and what skills the positions require? Am I? Is the average voter? Most likely, no, no, and a big fat no. I can only assume that you prefer a vastly smaller government to even make this suggestion, and to a point I agree, but this isn't the way to do it.

Quote:
There's already a number of state positions, like Register of Wills for example, that I could give a rusty fuck about that I have to vote for now.

Who's forcing you to vote for the position?

Nobody, but because there were only around 10 positions I needed to vote for, and maybe double to triple that for presidential election years, I take the time and look up on my local newspaper's website where they interview each candidate with the same list of questions about major issues, and I can make an informed decision based on which candidate's views more closely match mine. If I had to worry about 1000 different positions, I wouldn't. If I were to vote at all, which I wouldn't if I had to stand in line for a week, I'd vote for Pres & VP, my state's national Congressman, maybe a couple other local races I heard something about, and I'd abstain on the rest because it wouldn't be worth the trouble. Most everyone else would do the same.

So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth;
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth!
- Eric Idle, from The Galaxy Song


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
BarkAtTheMoon wrote:Why

BarkAtTheMoon wrote:
Why bother even having elected officials at all? Why not take it a step further and just have a caretaker head of each agency and every decision from every part of the government that's ever needed to be made is nationally voted on? Then the entire nation could completely grind to a halt, the economy would collapse as people spend 24/7 voting, millions would die, and total anarchy would prevail as society reverts back to the hunter/gatherer Stone Age. Sounds good, huh?

It's a load of bullshit relying on a lot of false assumptions based on something I wasn't actually advocating and predicting anarchy via state (absurd as that is), to an anarchist who denies that the government is why we do not live in chaos and denies that the government is why we have a standard of living that we do, and who is opposed to democracy and voting on the two-wolves-and-a-sheep-voting-on-dinner principle. I must say, that's one hell of a strawman, though. Congradulations on being second only to marxists discussing capitalism on the strawman scale.

Quote:
Well, that's one way to accomplish the goal of educating people about the government. This is extremely impractical, however.

That's the idea. I want it to be come as hard as possible for the government to function. The more impractical government practice is, the less governmental practice governs.

Quote:
I voted on the way home from work this election, at around 5:30, 15 minutes in and out and home a bit after six to make dinner. Multiply by a few hundred the positions to vote for and the time it takes to vote, and I'm in there an hour or two or more. Lines, which are hours long in some areas now, would be outrageous and the vote would take a month to get everyone through, and people who may have been interested in voting now just wouldn't vote because of the hassle. With voter turnout embarassingly low in the States anyway, that would crush future turnouts and would easily allow special interest groups, like Conservative Christian groups for example, to rally their people and basically stage a hostile takeover of the government.

Good. Then everyone will just ignore the government and it'll become completely ineffective.

Quote:
Also, just because a government agency exists, doesn't mean they make people less free. Some maybe do, most don't and most will hardly ever directly affect your life.

You clearly have no idea what this "government" thing is all about. Government governs because if it did not govern, people would be free to do things the government does not want done.

Every single federal agency you listed is funded by taxation. Taxation is depriving you of the freedom to decide what to do with your own money. That's destructive of freedom, even if the other functions of the government are not.

Quote:
Are you qualified to know who should run each of those agencies and what skills the positions require? Am I? Is the average voter? Most likely, no, no, and a big fat no.

I'm anti-democracy. This doesn't incriminate me at all. I'm just advocating the frustration of the system, which as you said, it would be pretty good at.

Quote:
I can only assume that you prefer a vastly smaller government to even make this suggestion, and to a point I agree, but this isn't the way to do it.

I'm anti-government. If no government is a vastly smaller government, then yes I prefer a vastly smaller government. And I know it's not the way to shrink government, but if it'll frustrate the function of the government, I'm happy with it.

Quote:
Nobody, but because there were only around 10 positions I needed to vote for, and maybe double to triple that for presidential election years, I take the time and look up on my local newspaper's website where they interview each candidate with the same list of questions about major issues, and I can make an informed decision based on which candidate's views more closely match mine. If I had to worry about 1000 different positions, I wouldn't. If I were to vote at all, which I wouldn't if I had to stand in line for a week, I'd vote for Pres & VP, my state's national Congressman, maybe a couple other local races I heard something about, and I'd abstain on the rest because it wouldn't be worth the trouble. Most everyone else would do the same.

Just abstain from voting.


BarkAtTheMoon
Rational VIP!
BarkAtTheMoon's picture
Posts: 85
Joined: 2006-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: It's a load of

Zhwazi wrote:

It's a load of bullshit relying on a lot of false assumptions based on something I wasn't actually advocating and predicting anarchy via state (absurd as that is), to an anarchist who denies that the government is why we do not live in chaos and denies that the government is why we have a standard of living that we do, and who is opposed to democracy and voting on the two-wolves-and-a-sheep-voting-on-dinner principle. I must say, that's one hell of a strawman, though. Congradulations on being second only to marxists discussing capitalism on the strawman scale.

It was over-the-top sarcasm to make a point. I thought that was pretty obvious.
Quote:

You clearly have no idea what this "government" thing is all about. Government governs because if it did not govern, people would be free to do things the government does not want done.

Every single federal agency you listed is funded by taxation. Taxation is depriving you of the freedom to decide what to do with your own money. That's destructive of freedom, even if the other functions of the government are not.

I'm anti-democracy. This doesn't incriminate me at all. I'm just advocating the frustration of the system, which as you said, it would be pretty good at.


So how would you see the world shaping up if there was zero government? I don't see how it would work without a vastly less dence population. Are you in favor of self-policing, ie. vigilantes and posses, or no policing, no order whatsoever where the worst of crimes go unpunished? As an anarchist, what do you suppose does keep society from chaos?

It seems to me that for the most part, government arose as a natural addition to society as small, tribal clans started to organize into larger communities. Even small, nomadic tribes generally had a chief, elders, and some sort of power structure with punishments for misdeeds, however informal it might've been. Even a lot of animals have similar power structures within prides, herds, flocks, etc. As communities get much larger, the power structure expands with it until we reached nation status. How do you propose that people overcome this natural instinct for maintaining order? How do you see serious human advancements in things like technology & medicine being achieved in a purely anarchic world?

I will agree that there is far too much government, especially in America, but I still can't see how it's practical to have a complete anarchy in an advanced, civil society. If religion teaches us nothing else, it's that most people are ignorant, irrational sheep that need direction in their lives and someone to tell them how to act, and when they don't have that direction they're vicious, dangerous animals. Some would be smart enough to handle an anarchic society, most aren't.

So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth;
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth!
- Eric Idle, from The Galaxy Song


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Voiderest wrote:Unless the

Voiderest wrote:
Unless the OT doesn't count, then they have to figure out new laws and new punishments.

Well, if they where to follow all of the bible, they would have to follow the OT.

Because (Unless I'm mistaken) Jesus says something about all the old laws are still in effect.

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
BarkAtTheMoon wrote:It was

BarkAtTheMoon wrote:
It was over-the-top sarcasm to make a point. I thought that was pretty obvious.

I must have been in a serious mood at the time and missed that.

Quote:
So how would you see the world shaping up if there was zero government? I don't see how it would work without a vastly less dence population. Are you in favor of self-policing, ie. vigilantes and posses, or no policing, no order whatsoever where the worst of crimes go unpunished? As an anarchist, what do you suppose does keep society from chaos?

In terms of policing, I personally believe I can adequately defend myself. There would be a demand for additional protection services though, so protection agencies would spring up to offer the supply to satisfy the demand.

Quote:
It seems to me that for the most part, government arose as a natural addition to society as small, tribal clans started to organize into larger communities. Even small, nomadic tribes generally had a chief, elders, and some sort of power structure with punishments for misdeeds, however informal it might've been. Even a lot of animals have similar power structures within prides, herds, flocks, etc. As communities get much larger, the power structure expands with it until we reached nation status.

Then government is an old element of pre-civilization which we no longer need now that we have civilization.

Quote:
How do you propose that people overcome this natural instinct for maintaining order?

The A in a circle, the common symbol of anarchism, means "Anarchy is Order" (A and O). I believe that it's true that anarchy is order. I do not advocate chaos. I don't know exactly when anarchy came to become synonymous with chaos, it's ana archon, without rulers. There is nothing inherent in government that creates order.

Quote:
How do you see serious human advancements in things like technology & medicine being achieved in a purely anarchic world?

The same way they happen today in absence of government funding: the free market's entrepreneurs and innovaters will seek to bring products to market to satisfy demand.

Quote:
I will agree that there is far too much government, especially in America, but I still can't see how it's practical to have a complete anarchy in an advanced, civil society.

Suppose the roads were privatized. The post office was dissolved and FedEx and UPS took over private delivery of letters. Suppose the police departments were sold off and the police officers spent less time enforcing drug laws and more time protecting people from harm, possibly on a subscription basis. Suppose all present functions of government which people desire were done not by government, but by people, private companies and businesses (not corporations, the body corporate is an invention of the government), which saw demand for something and then set out to supply satisfaction of the demands. Suppose the Federal Reserve were dissolved and rather than fiat money, people used real, hard, backed money, like gold or silver notes. That's what I mean. It's anarchy in that no government exists, but not chaos or degeneration into it. It would just be a free market in everything, bringing with it the low price, high quality, responsiveness to consumer demand, and speedy, accessible service that the market typically provides and which the government's bureaucracies typically bemoan. That's all I really want. Unfortunately the word "anarchy" is tied to it and people associate it with "chaos".

Quote:
If religion teaches us nothing else, it's that most people are ignorant, irrational sheep that need direction in their lives and someone to tell them how to act, and when they don't have that direction they're vicious, dangerous animals.

People could choose their own leaders if they need them. There's no need to force one onto them.

Quote:
Some would be smart enough to handle an anarchic society, most aren't.

They will either learn or Darwin will teach them the hard way. I'm inclined to believe they will learn.


Crazybassist03
Crazybassist03's picture
Posts: 22
Joined: 2006-07-16
User is offlineOffline
Sam Harris makes some really

Sam Harris makes some really good points in his book. However, he relates Muslim extremism back to 9-11 and never takes in account that the government's explainations of 9-11 (i.e. Muslim terrorists, Al Queida) may not be entirely accurate or just outright false.