>Deconstruction..it tells us that there is no truth.>
except postmodernism which of course is the true and Derrida its apostle (prophet, messenger).
Repeat this five times per day, in the university setting, while facing Paris.
>What is the ethical basis ?
There is no ethical or philosophical basis for postmodernism, it is a folly.
Strictly speaking it is an example of “magical thinking” : a belief that words can make or break reality, that what you think about what is somehow-how
alters reality,somehow makes what is. Truly delusional.
This in theory, in practice it a parlor game of bored literati while waiting for their (prepostmodern) salaries.
The whole point of the “Blasphemey Challenge” is, I think, just to wind up the religious believers.
Nothing fancy about misinterpreting the bible.
They and I don’t damn well care.
What we do care about is the arrogant pomposity of the believers, or (locally) their moronic repitition of “Jesus loves you” no matter what you say to them.
Whereas “blasphemy” gets their goat, and it is SO MUCH FUN!
Trying this on the mulsims is more danagerous, but needs to be done, as well ….
Arash Sorx’s article “Religion’s role in the Expansion of AIDs” is condescending and unthinking. An anti-intellectual attack on religion certainly doesn’t promote tolerance for others and it is difficult to see any positive purpose to this article.
In addition, Mr. Sorx seems completely unaware that HIV transmission is not always prevented by condom use. It is a medical fact that condoms do not always keep many viruses that cause STDs from passing through. The primary purpose of a condom is to prevent pregnancy. This occurs by preventing the passage of sperm cells that are much larger than the viruses that cause diseases like AIDS. Each time a condom is used, it may or it may not also prevent the transmission of an STD. The continual elevation of the condom as the sure-fire solution to HIV transmission is a dangerous and irresponsible mythology perpetuated by many people with the medical knowledge to know better.
Some African nations have had success in reducing HIV transmission rates by encouraging youth to abstain and encouraging later monogomous marital relationships. Mr. Sorx is very confused in thinking that abstinence doesn’t prevent HIV transmission- his comments on this just don’t make sense. Abstaining sexually is not analogous to attempting to not breathe polluted air- I don’t even know why he tried to make such a silly comparison.
Furthermore, abstinence education has other benefits. The April 2003 non-partisan “Journal of Adolescent and Family Health” has a published study showing the benefits of increased abstinence in reducing teen pregnancy and birth rates in the United States in the 1990’s.
There have been many great articles posted at “Butterflies and Wheels”. Mr. Sorx’s effort wasn’t one of them. How about trying to keep the intellectual level a little higher and spare us the diatribes? I admire and respect those whose ideas and beliefs differ from mine but such a sharing of ideas should be done in a manner that makes use of facts and logic that go beyond the author’s prism of bias.
>The April 2003 non-partisan “Journal of Adolescent and Family Health” has a published study showing the benefits of increased abstinence in reducing teen pregnancy and birth rates in the United States in the 1990’s>
That’s wonderful but did they had to do a study to prove it ?
Is their next discovery going to be that the leading cause of death is life ? Or that using condoms too reduces teen pregnancy ? Or that reduced pregnancy leads to reduced birth rates ?
Whether Sorax’s position is right can be proved only by statistics that would compare different societies/cultures and show their results.
The success of religion to actually supress the sexual behavior on reason that it is immoral, god-forbideen, is ( based historical evidence) nowhere that spectacular yet it succeeds in making people neurotic enough so as to stop thinking, behave plain idiotically, and not take elementary measures to increase their safety chances when, nevertheless, they do it. [for many of them preaching is as good as preaching them not to breath polluted air]
However, whether if the overall result is better (or worse) than sexual disinhibition, freedom to think and choose coupled now with guarded and rational measures (as condoms, clintons or pornography as substitute, etc.) is not that clear without stats which would compare secular-rational and religious-supressive cultures ( say France and Iran).
It is a trade-off of many variables (and inter-related : de-moralization (sic!) leads to an increase of the sex drive and activity by positive feedback) and while Sorax’s analysis is right qualitatively only stats can tell us if his conclusion is also quantitatively sound.
> …religion… to actually supress the sexual behavior on reason that it is immoral, god-forbideen, is ( based historical evidence) nowhere that spectacular yet it succeeds in making people neurotic enough so as to stop thinking, behave plain idiotically…
and sex, unlike religion, makes people think!? or behave less idiotically?
My attention has been called to Introduction to ‘Multiple Designers Theory’ by Richard B. Hoppe, posted at Panda’s Thumb (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/09/19-week/#e000509)on September 19 2004. B&W readers please take note of the date, and of the fact that I make no claims of priority whatsoever for the idea that intelligent design as an explanation of natural phenomena is more likely ascribable to multiple designers rather than to a single one, that is, insofar as it can be said to apply at all.
I commend Dr Hoppe’s work on the subject to all readers.
How is it that someone who’s job it is to study the scientific investigation of religion does not know the most simple tools of archeological analysis. Egyptian remains have been so thoroughly investigated that you can quote an age of death, diet quality, muscle mass, etc etc. Why is it that this is all ignored, and replaced by long-winded but hollow phrases involving words like “alas” as though he so wise that all this hooplah is nothing more than childish. I’m sick of all the frilly crap used to give the illusion of a stronger argument. Why can an argument not be structured like:
Premise 1
Premise 2
…
Conclusion
Is this too hard? It would certainly be more effective.
Observer would do well to investigate the controversy before digressing about what’s turned up in Egypt. Mitochondrial dna tests can only determine matrilineal genetic relationship. The tests performed determined on the basis of a thumbnail of debris that the “individuals” in the Jesua and Miriamne ossuaries were not brother and sister. Alas.
Post your figures. Facts, documents, URLs, please. The readers can decide for themselves.
en.wikipedia.org
Google number of killed (and how) in Soviet Union, Communist China, Occupied Palestine, Khmer Rouge, etc. Then compare.
Is what happened in Iran, OK? No. Certainly not.
But what is one the “most brutal regimes” in 20 century?
Zereshk.
We have the figures for Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, the Brits, ze Weasles, and of course, Zionistaan. The Sum here is in the Hundreds of millions dead, “brutally”.
Just simply Communist Maoist China, a darling of many of the “political prisoners” you mention, is enough to make one scream in horror.
And you comparing that to Iran?
Lets further bring the record of French Revolution, Russian Revolution, Chinese Revolution, and Iranian Revolution.
The Iranian one was, by far, the least bloody of all.
And you know, before the “West” started showing exactly what they think of Human Rights and various other ‘conventions’, (anonymous) propaganda agents such as yourself could make “human rights” noises.
But we have now Iraq, Cuba, and the rest of it and we are not, in anyway,
impressed with the Human Rights Groups.
If Human Rights is what you were after, you would be striking at the root …
and the root of evils against humanity are in The West, not Iran.
Bah, hair-splitting. Though the existense of the Holy Spirit might not come into play in the quoted passages, by inference denial of the Holy Spirit’s existence as a valid form of unforgivable blasphemy is not excluded as it both denies either (1) the existence of the Holy spirit (2)or the Holy Spirits existence as a entity qualified erroneously as a demonic force. In both cases, the utterance of denial of the Holy Spirit as a power with the ability to heal through Jesus clearly and logically performs the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit that Jesus is said to have characterized as unforgivable.
Is the blasphemy challenge infantile? Yeah, sort of. So what? Is it any more infantile than maintaining throughout adulthood allegiance to religious structures that absolve you of the need for personal, critical moral reasoning in your day to day life?
How could you possibly consider IRI one of the most brutal regimes in 20th century?
20th century saw Stalin, Mao, Pol pot, Hitler, French Occupied Alegeria, British Occupied India, Zionist Occupied Palestine, …
The list is fairly ‘distinguished’. Care to sum the number of dead, maimed, and tortured in the above equation and divide by the number of contributing “brutal regimes”?
I did not, could not, get past the first sentence of your ‘essay’. When one encounters such a blatant distortion of facts, it is clear that the author lacks the necessary integrity (*) to merit a hearing.
KhodaNegahdar
& Salaam
*: moral, intellectual. Even basic math, so lets add mathematical 2!
>How could you possibly consider IRI one of the most brutal regimes in 20th century?>
Right, you are. Iran lives in the Middle Ages, not in the 21th century, while ruled by religious fundamentalists who recognize no secular rule of law or concept of rights.
There are no accurate records of just how many men, women and girls were executed in the first years of the Revolution. There is a credible list of 14,028 names available and some sources claim figures of several tens of thousands, although these are not substantiated with names.
For instance, according to a report published by the Organisation of Women Against Execution in Iran, at least 2,000 women were executed between June 1981 and 1990. They have been able to prepare a list containing 1,428 names. 187 of these women were under the age of 18, with 9 girls under the age of 13 and 14 between the ages of 45 to 70. The youngest girl executed was just 10 years old. Thirty two of these women were reported to have been pregnant at the time of their execution. Many of those executed were high school and college students. Hanging was the most common method of execution for women, although some were shot. (Large numbers of men were shot during this period.)
Men and women were hanged in large groups in Tehran prisons from cranes and forklift trucks. Each crane jib or forklift had a wooden or steel beam to which the noose was attached and when the preparations were complete, the prisoners were simply hoisted into the air.
Under Revolutionary law, young girls who were sentenced to death could not be executed if they were still virgins. Thus, they were “married off” to Revolutionary Guards and prison officials in temporary marriages and then raped before their execution, to prevent them going to heaven.
In the volume ‘Crimes Against Humanity: Indict Iran’s Ruling Mullahs for Massacre of 30,000 Political Prisoners’ (published in 2001) Lord Avebury describes a major massacre in 1988, (according to Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri): “in the first few days of the…massacre…thousands were killed, and at a conservative estimate. the final death toll was in the region of 30,000.”.
Today, violations of human rights in Iran are institutionalised, wide-spread and legal in the Iranian penal code, deriving from the Sharia.
Systematic abuses include extrajudicial killings and summary executions; disappearances; widespread use of torture and other degrading treatment; harsh prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention; lack of due process; unfair trials; infringement on citizens’ privacy; and restrictions on freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, religion, and movement. establishment. The Government restricts the work of human rights groups.
Women face legal and social discrimination, and violence.
Iranian police tend to respond to peaceful political demonstrations by viciously beating and arresting protesters, who are then subject to further beatings, torture, sexual assault, and denial of medical treatment in prison.
Re: > “Three Women’s Rights very brave Defenders”. < Shadi Sadr, Mahbubeh Abbasgholizadeh, and Jila Baniyaghoub,—are still in ward 209 of Evin Prison (run by the Ministry of Intelligence of Islamic Republic of Iran... I am, right this moment in time thinking of you all, and of the suffering you are all having to persevere. "Let us not fear that truth might endanger truth. [B.S. Butler]
>Is the blasphemy challenge infantile? Yeah, sort of. So what? Is it any more infantile than maintaining throughout adulthood allegiance to religious structures …>
We are not engaged in a competition who can do the most infantile things and one stupidity doesn’t make others suddenly becoming praiseworthy.
There would have been much better choices if one wanted to take on religion and theology. It is a serious subject and the ‘blasphemy challange’ approach only serves to prove that atheists are uneducated (or childish, or both) with Dawkins leading their pack. (read L.Orr’s review of Dawkins’ Delusion)
the begin with, Faoiseamh, an Irish counselling support system…..while it does have a Confidential clause…..it also (breached) that very clause. as well……….(it is, after all, a set up of counsellors, paid for, and funded by, CORI.(Catholic orders of religious in Ireland)….as well as charging “private fee’s……..Nevetheless….that very service, same as with Laragh counselling services (Many victims were referred to it, by the Aislinn Centre) some of whom, later discovered that information they shared, was also being passed over to the Department of education…..People in Ireland and around the world, ought to be aware of that issue….and the truth/facts of these matters….
At least 2.2 million migrants will arrive in the rich world every year from now until 2050, the United Nations said yesterday. Britain’s population will rise from 60 million to approaching 69 million by 2050 – almost entirely because of immigration. The latest figures from the UN’s population division predict a global upheaval without parallel in human history over the next four decades. […] [T]ens of millions will migrate to Europe and America, while the indigenous populations of most countries in the rich world will either stagnate or decline
‘Bah, hair-splitting. Though the existense of the Holy Spirit might not come into play in the quoted passages, by inference denial of the Holy Spirit’s existence as a valid form of unforgivable blasphemy is not excluded’.
It is not ‘hair-splitting’ to point out when a text is being misunderstood, or deliberately manipulated for ideological purposes.
There is no sense in which one can ‘infer’ from those New Testament texts that denying the *existence* of the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.
Denying the ‘Holy Spirits [sic] existence as a [sic] entity qualified erroneously as a demonic force’ has no relevance to the biblical texts whatsoever.
Just face it: an atheist *cannot* commit an unforgivable sin. You might hate that to be so, but there is, in reality, no easy ‘get out clause’ that will ‘save’ you from the possibility of salvation.
‘Just face it: an atheist *cannot* commit an unforgivable sin. You might hate that to be so, but there is, in reality, no easy ‘get out clause’ that will ‘save’ you from the possibility of salvation.’
Maybe so. But there’s always consequence, as long as you earth-plankton place any kind of value on each other.
BTW, Dawkins’ claims that I don’t exist are just pure resentment.
He’s been calling on Me for YEARS, but I’ve never answered.
As anyone with half a brain knows, I have ALWAYS reserved communication for psychos, nut-jobs, druggies (both atheist and non) and, of course, George Bush.
“Let’s take the example of the recent conflict between Israel and Hizbullah, carried out on Lebanese soil… But aside from sending its foreign policy spokesman Javier de Solana to Beirut and Jerusalem, the EU provided a laughable spectacle with its chorus of dissonant voices.”
There were dissonant voices because different European countries took different views, something Habermas evidently abhors in his quest for ever-closer European Union.
Habermas advocates “a common foreign policy, the creation of joint armed forces and the harmonisation of tax and economic policies to secure our endangered social and cultural standards”.
To this end he argues for a “Europe-wide referendum”:
“The governments – which control the process after all – have to recognize their own powerlessness and, this one time, ‘dare to use democracy.’ They have to rise above themselves and face the political parties of which they themselves are composed with the necessity of engaging in an open, Europe-wide campaign, a struggle for each and every vote in favour of, or in opposition to, an expansion and deepening of the European Union.”
How wonderfully democratic. Habermas would have the EU overcome the opposition (most notably in the UK, though it is pretty strong in several other countries) to “ever-closer Union” by harnessing the steamroller of a Europe-wide referendum in which the democratic wishes of electorates which do not conform to his grandiose view of the European future is crushed by the votes of those who do. Not forgetting that the massive resources of Governments which would support such a referendum would be harnessed to try to ensure the ‘right’ result. No doubt this would not worry Habermas too much, as he evidently thinks that right-thinking, *advanced* people (i.e., those who hold views similar to his own) should impose their vision of the future (for the greater benefit of all, of course – where have I heard that one before?).
I fear that the old-timer Habermas is still under the spell of an out-dated notion of social *tidiness* – let’s *organize* everything so that we all (all the disparate countries of Europe, with very different histories, traditions, and sometimes social attitudes) act as one unit. Habermas’s dream is more like a nightmare to many of us.
Ah, such passion! We are being overrun by ideologues, yelling and screaming at each other with ink. What has science got to do with it? To oppose GM foods does not require one to be anti-science. To oppose the patenting of natural processes is not anti-science. Citing an article from the Cato Institute does however indicate a certain bias toward anti thought on the part of the author.
Denmark voted against the Maastricht treaty twice. Ireland voted against the Nice treaty. Look at many other countries, they are under enormous pressure. It is almost blackmail. It is a trick for idiots.
The people have to vote in referendums until the people vote the way that is wanted. The European Union is what Americans would call a shotgun marriage.
A modification of my previous comment on Habermas’s vision of the European future:
Web-browsing led me back to the Habermas interview, and I see at the very end of it that his immediate “vision” is that the proposed referendum on a single European president, foreign minister, and unified financial base would be binding only on those countries in which the majority of citizens had voted for the reforms. (Does he mean the majority of those who vote, or a genuine majority of the electorate?) Nevertheless for Habermas this is but a strategy for achieving his medium-term vision of a common foreign policy, the creation of joint armed forces and the harmonisation of tax and economic policies.
French philosopher and cultural critic Alain Finkielkraut thinks that “Europe does not love itself.” Finkielkraut says that it’s not forces from outside that are threatening Europe as much as the voluntary renunciation of European identity, its wish of freeing itself from itself, its own history and its traditions. The European Union thus isn’t just post-national, but post-European. What characterizes Europe today is the will to define itself, not from an ideology, but by dismissing any sense of identity. Europe is now built upon an oath: Never again. Never again extermination, never again war, but also never again nationalism. Europe prides itself in being nothing. According to Finkielkraut, Auschwitz has become part of the foundation of the EU, a culture based on guilt. But this is a vague ideology saying that “We have to oppose everything the Nazis were for.” Consequently, nationalism or any kind of attachment to your own country, including what some would say is healthy, non-aggressive patriotism, is frowned upon. To remember is to regret. Europe rejects its past. “European identity” is the de-identification of Europe. Of the past, we are only to remember crimes. This didn’t just happen in Germany, but in all of Europe. “I can understand the feeling of remorse that is leading Europe to this definition, but this remorse goes too far. It is too great a gift to present Hitler to reject everything that led to him.” This is said by the Jewish son of an Auschwitz prisoner.
They are violently insisting on a special privilege which no other religion, political or ideological leader has. It is hypocritical, because they feel entitled to abuse Jews, Hindus, the West, anyone, if THEY choose to. It is primitive, because it opposes free speech which is maybe the greatest charcateristic of the modern world. It shows psychological denial, because Mohammed was in fact a war lord – not bombs in his turban, but armies and swords at his side. Its wholly unacceptable, and if Moslems want to live in the West they will have to learn to accept its core secular values. Otherwise – go away.
> Yes, that’s a good way to put it. Europe has certainly lost confidence in itself. This was something that, when I was a young man, we never imagined would happen. But, now it’s clear that we could do ourselves in. And I’m ashamed to say that it’s France leading this new trend, especially by rejecting the constitution. We’re not sure that this project has a future, or at least we’re not sure what it is.<
France *leading* this new trend? I doubt the Danes (and others) would agree on that. Trust a Frenchman to give credit to the French. -:)
There is a very readable critique of Paley and his followers in “Darwin’s Watch” by Terry Pratchett et al. This book also contains an amusing fantasy novella.
>Its wholly unacceptable, and if Moslems want to live in the West they will have to learn to accept its core secular values. Otherwise – go away. >
This would be a normal requirement… in a normal world.
But it doesn’t happen. To the contrary Europe, in the name of political correctness, has abdicated the battle for cultural and religious control.
The Islamists have found a sense of identity and purpose, while we are losing our own to self-denigration and self-abasement.
Even worse, enlightened Muslims as Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Necla Kelek, Bassam Tibi, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali are attacked and maligned in press by our mandarins, our state sponsored-( or Saudi sponsored ?) “intellectuals” in the name of “multiculturalism”.
Arton Gash and Ian Buruma criticizing Ayaan Ali for being “enlightnment fundamentalist”. What a folly, more postmodern, meaningless, word-spinning
It is maddening, disheartening, you don’t now what to do, to laugh at the infinity of human stupidity or to scream and bang your head against the table to know no more.
If it is not deliberate of course and I suspect that this is the case since the same intellectuals embrace and praise the chief ideologue of the Muslim Brotherhood : Tariq Ramadan.
This discussion is very interesting. Fundamentalist religion whatever its origin is anathema to intelligent people. Basically I believe that two characteristics distinguish mankind from other animals: language and reason. Fundamentalist religion usually requires “faith” which usually asks you to believe when there is no reason to do so. Many of the massacres described in these letters were carried out to attain or maintain power. That’s history. Right now fundamentalist religion is as large a threat to humanity as climate change. Looked at like this the suicide bomber is the ultimate nihilist.
>Looked at like this the suicide bomber is the ultimate nihilist>.
well, islamic theology is not your thing, sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi [another much praised “moderate” by our university profs experts in Islam as John Esposito, or by only amateurs, as the mayor of London Ken Livingston ] has this to say to you:
“Those who oppose martyrdom operations and claim that they are suicide are making a great mistake. The goals of the who carries out a martyrdom operation and the one who commits suicide are completely different. Anyone who analyzes the soul of [these two] will disover the huge differences between them. The [person who commits] suicide kills himself for himself, because he failed in business, love, examination, and the like. He was to weak to cope with situation and choose to flee life for death…In contrast, [the one who carries a martyrdom operation] sacrifices for the sake of a higer goal, for which all sacrifices become meaningless. He sells himself to Allah in order to buy Paradise in exchange. Allah said : “Allah has bought from the belivers their sould and their properties for they shall inherit the Paradise..”…the one who carries out a martyrdom operation has a clear goal, and that is to please Allah”
Middle East Media Research Institute, Special dispatch no.542, July 24, 2003
But strange enough Qaradawi at [http://www.thememriblog.org/blog_personal/en/1060.htm] seems to agree to the EU newspeak about Islam [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/30/wislam30.xml]
“We are not abolishing the military jihad with the civil jihad, but appropriate statements must be made in the appropriate setting. In another place I call for military jihad and even for martyrdom operations. In the eyes of some people, my blood is permitted because of this. But at the Al-Quds Institute, I call for civil jihad.”
God is dead
>Deconstruction..it tells us that there is no truth.>
except postmodernism which of course is the true and Derrida its apostle (prophet, messenger).
Repeat this five times per day, in the university setting, while facing Paris.
>What is the ethical basis ?
There is no ethical or philosophical basis for postmodernism, it is a folly.
Strictly speaking it is an example of “magical thinking” : a belief that words can make or break reality, that what you think about what is somehow-how
alters reality,somehow makes what is. Truly delusional.
This in theory, in practice it a parlor game of bored literati while waiting for their (prepostmodern) salaries.
Abracadabra !~ and the door of riches opens.
“The Blasphemy Challenge”
Thank you for this article that sweeps the floor with those childish performances.
It merely emphasizes the weakest point of a documentary, which in itself is worth watching.
Flemming’s personal confession already struck me as a bit akward, but I figured it was just his way of dealing with his childhood trauma.
To take this theme as the starting point for a Blasphemy Challenge is not necessarily the best way of getting the message out.
I hope that the work on the Jesus Project will be more effective in its approach to a bigger audience.
Good luck to you two on this undertaking and please don’t be modest on posting about it.
The whole point of the “Blasphemey Challenge” is, I think, just to wind up the religious believers.
Nothing fancy about misinterpreting the bible.
They and I don’t damn well care.
What we do care about is the arrogant pomposity of the believers, or (locally) their moronic repitition of “Jesus loves you” no matter what you say to them.
Whereas “blasphemy” gets their goat, and it is SO MUCH FUN!
Trying this on the mulsims is more danagerous, but needs to be done, as well ….
Yes, morality is dead.
Well, I still want to commit the sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
A fresh try.
I declare here, in public:
If there exist a Holy Spirit and a Satan I’m pretty sure that
“the works of the Holy Spirit are actually the works of Satan.”
Did I do it properly now?
For me it is unfortunately impossible to say in with more confidence, as an atheist, but I did my best.
If I still did not blaspheme, Edmund Standing should give me some further advice.
Arash Sorx’s article “Religion’s role in the Expansion of AIDs” is condescending and unthinking. An anti-intellectual attack on religion certainly doesn’t promote tolerance for others and it is difficult to see any positive purpose to this article.
In addition, Mr. Sorx seems completely unaware that HIV transmission is not always prevented by condom use. It is a medical fact that condoms do not always keep many viruses that cause STDs from passing through. The primary purpose of a condom is to prevent pregnancy. This occurs by preventing the passage of sperm cells that are much larger than the viruses that cause diseases like AIDS. Each time a condom is used, it may or it may not also prevent the transmission of an STD. The continual elevation of the condom as the sure-fire solution to HIV transmission is a dangerous and irresponsible mythology perpetuated by many people with the medical knowledge to know better.
Some African nations have had success in reducing HIV transmission rates by encouraging youth to abstain and encouraging later monogomous marital relationships. Mr. Sorx is very confused in thinking that abstinence doesn’t prevent HIV transmission- his comments on this just don’t make sense. Abstaining sexually is not analogous to attempting to not breathe polluted air- I don’t even know why he tried to make such a silly comparison.
Furthermore, abstinence education has other benefits. The April 2003 non-partisan “Journal of Adolescent and Family Health” has a published study showing the benefits of increased abstinence in reducing teen pregnancy and birth rates in the United States in the 1990’s.
There have been many great articles posted at “Butterflies and Wheels”. Mr. Sorx’s effort wasn’t one of them. How about trying to keep the intellectual level a little higher and spare us the diatribes? I admire and respect those whose ideas and beliefs differ from mine but such a sharing of ideas should be done in a manner that makes use of facts and logic that go beyond the author’s prism of bias.
>The April 2003 non-partisan “Journal of Adolescent and Family Health” has a published study showing the benefits of increased abstinence in reducing teen pregnancy and birth rates in the United States in the 1990’s>
That’s wonderful but did they had to do a study to prove it ?
Is their next discovery going to be that the leading cause of death is life ? Or that using condoms too reduces teen pregnancy ? Or that reduced pregnancy leads to reduced birth rates ?
Whether Sorax’s position is right can be proved only by statistics that would compare different societies/cultures and show their results.
The success of religion to actually supress the sexual behavior on reason that it is immoral, god-forbideen, is ( based historical evidence) nowhere that spectacular yet it succeeds in making people neurotic enough so as to stop thinking, behave plain idiotically, and not take elementary measures to increase their safety chances when, nevertheless, they do it. [for many of them preaching is as good as preaching them not to breath polluted air]
However, whether if the overall result is better (or worse) than sexual disinhibition, freedom to think and choose coupled now with guarded and rational measures (as condoms, clintons or pornography as substitute, etc.) is not that clear without stats which would compare secular-rational and religious-supressive cultures ( say France and Iran).
It is a trade-off of many variables (and inter-related : de-moralization (sic!) leads to an increase of the sex drive and activity by positive feedback) and while Sorax’s analysis is right qualitatively only stats can tell us if his conclusion is also quantitatively sound.
> …religion… to actually supress the sexual behavior on reason that it is immoral, god-forbideen, is ( based historical evidence) nowhere that spectacular yet it succeeds in making people neurotic enough so as to stop thinking, behave plain idiotically…
and sex, unlike religion, makes people think!? or behave less idiotically?
I am a notorious, chronic, incorrigible buffoon and nuisance.
Shakespeare is dead too, debunked and desconstructed by postmortemists.
Self-hatred, self-deprecation, seems to be the single most important trait of the Western culture these days.
see at :
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1268/article_detail.asp
My attention has been called to Introduction to ‘Multiple Designers Theory’ by Richard B. Hoppe, posted at Panda’s Thumb (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/09/19-week/#e000509)on September 19 2004. B&W readers please take note of the date, and of the fact that I make no claims of priority whatsoever for the idea that intelligent design as an explanation of natural phenomena is more likely ascribable to multiple designers rather than to a single one, that is, insofar as it can be said to apply at all.
I commend Dr Hoppe’s work on the subject to all readers.
How is it that someone who’s job it is to study the scientific investigation of religion does not know the most simple tools of archeological analysis. Egyptian remains have been so thoroughly investigated that you can quote an age of death, diet quality, muscle mass, etc etc. Why is it that this is all ignored, and replaced by long-winded but hollow phrases involving words like “alas” as though he so wise that all this hooplah is nothing more than childish. I’m sick of all the frilly crap used to give the illusion of a stronger argument. Why can an argument not be structured like:
Premise 1
Premise 2
…
Conclusion
Is this too hard? It would certainly be more effective.
Observer would do well to investigate the controversy before digressing about what’s turned up in Egypt. Mitochondrial dna tests can only determine matrilineal genetic relationship. The tests performed determined on the basis of a thumbnail of debris that the “individuals” in the Jesua and Miriamne ossuaries were not brother and sister. Alas.
Salaam Cyrus,
Post your figures. Facts, documents, URLs, please. The readers can decide for themselves.
en.wikipedia.org
Google number of killed (and how) in Soviet Union, Communist China, Occupied Palestine, Khmer Rouge, etc. Then compare.
Is what happened in Iran, OK? No. Certainly not.
But what is one the “most brutal regimes” in 20 century?
Zereshk.
We have the figures for Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, the Brits, ze Weasles, and of course, Zionistaan. The Sum here is in the Hundreds of millions dead, “brutally”.
Just simply Communist Maoist China, a darling of many of the “political prisoners” you mention, is enough to make one scream in horror.
And you comparing that to Iran?
Lets further bring the record of French Revolution, Russian Revolution, Chinese Revolution, and Iranian Revolution.
The Iranian one was, by far, the least bloody of all.
And you know, before the “West” started showing exactly what they think of Human Rights and various other ‘conventions’, (anonymous) propaganda agents such as yourself could make “human rights” noises.
But we have now Iraq, Cuba, and the rest of it and we are not, in anyway,
impressed with the Human Rights Groups.
If Human Rights is what you were after, you would be striking at the root …
and the root of evils against humanity are in The West, not Iran.
Bah, hair-splitting. Though the existense of the Holy Spirit might not come into play in the quoted passages, by inference denial of the Holy Spirit’s existence as a valid form of unforgivable blasphemy is not excluded as it both denies either (1) the existence of the Holy spirit (2)or the Holy Spirits existence as a entity qualified erroneously as a demonic force. In both cases, the utterance of denial of the Holy Spirit as a power with the ability to heal through Jesus clearly and logically performs the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit that Jesus is said to have characterized as unforgivable.
Is the blasphemy challenge infantile? Yeah, sort of. So what? Is it any more infantile than maintaining throughout adulthood allegiance to religious structures that absolve you of the need for personal, critical moral reasoning in your day to day life?
Mr. Majedi,
Why do you lie about your own homeland?
How could you possibly consider IRI one of the most brutal regimes in 20th century?
20th century saw Stalin, Mao, Pol pot, Hitler, French Occupied Alegeria, British Occupied India, Zionist Occupied Palestine, …
The list is fairly ‘distinguished’. Care to sum the number of dead, maimed, and tortured in the above equation and divide by the number of contributing “brutal regimes”?
I did not, could not, get past the first sentence of your ‘essay’. When one encounters such a blatant distortion of facts, it is clear that the author lacks the necessary integrity (*) to merit a hearing.
KhodaNegahdar
& Salaam
*: moral, intellectual. Even basic math, so lets add mathematical 2!
>How could you possibly consider IRI one of the most brutal regimes in 20th century?>
Right, you are. Iran lives in the Middle Ages, not in the 21th century, while ruled by religious fundamentalists who recognize no secular rule of law or concept of rights.
There are no accurate records of just how many men, women and girls were executed in the first years of the Revolution. There is a credible list of 14,028 names available and some sources claim figures of several tens of thousands, although these are not substantiated with names.
For instance, according to a report published by the Organisation of Women Against Execution in Iran, at least 2,000 women were executed between June 1981 and 1990. They have been able to prepare a list containing 1,428 names. 187 of these women were under the age of 18, with 9 girls under the age of 13 and 14 between the ages of 45 to 70. The youngest girl executed was just 10 years old. Thirty two of these women were reported to have been pregnant at the time of their execution. Many of those executed were high school and college students. Hanging was the most common method of execution for women, although some were shot. (Large numbers of men were shot during this period.)
Men and women were hanged in large groups in Tehran prisons from cranes and forklift trucks. Each crane jib or forklift had a wooden or steel beam to which the noose was attached and when the preparations were complete, the prisoners were simply hoisted into the air.
Under Revolutionary law, young girls who were sentenced to death could not be executed if they were still virgins. Thus, they were “married off” to Revolutionary Guards and prison officials in temporary marriages and then raped before their execution, to prevent them going to heaven.
In the volume ‘Crimes Against Humanity: Indict Iran’s Ruling Mullahs for Massacre of 30,000 Political Prisoners’ (published in 2001) Lord Avebury describes a major massacre in 1988, (according to Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri): “in the first few days of the…massacre…thousands were killed, and at a conservative estimate. the final death toll was in the region of 30,000.”.
Today, violations of human rights in Iran are institutionalised, wide-spread and legal in the Iranian penal code, deriving from the Sharia.
Systematic abuses include extrajudicial killings and summary executions; disappearances; widespread use of torture and other degrading treatment; harsh prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention; lack of due process; unfair trials; infringement on citizens’ privacy; and restrictions on freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, religion, and movement. establishment. The Government restricts the work of human rights groups.
Women face legal and social discrimination, and violence.
Iranian police tend to respond to peaceful political demonstrations by viciously beating and arresting protesters, who are then subject to further beatings, torture, sexual assault, and denial of medical treatment in prison.
PS…keep digging mullahs, keep digging..
Re: > “Three Women’s Rights very brave Defenders”. < Shadi Sadr, Mahbubeh Abbasgholizadeh, and Jila Baniyaghoub,—are still in ward 209 of Evin Prison (run by the Ministry of Intelligence of Islamic Republic of Iran... I am, right this moment in time thinking of you all, and of the suffering you are all having to persevere. "Let us not fear that truth might endanger truth. [B.S. Butler]
>Is the blasphemy challenge infantile? Yeah, sort of. So what? Is it any more infantile than maintaining throughout adulthood allegiance to religious structures …>
We are not engaged in a competition who can do the most infantile things and one stupidity doesn’t make others suddenly becoming praiseworthy.
There would have been much better choices if one wanted to take on religion and theology. It is a serious subject and the ‘blasphemy challange’ approach only serves to prove that atheists are uneducated (or childish, or both) with Dawkins leading their pack. (read L.Orr’s review of Dawkins’ Delusion)
the begin with, Faoiseamh, an Irish counselling support system…..while it does have a Confidential clause…..it also (breached) that very clause. as well……….(it is, after all, a set up of counsellors, paid for, and funded by, CORI.(Catholic orders of religious in Ireland)….as well as charging “private fee’s……..Nevetheless….that very service, same as with Laragh counselling services (Many victims were referred to it, by the Aislinn Centre) some of whom, later discovered that information they shared, was also being passed over to the Department of education…..People in Ireland and around the world, ought to be aware of that issue….and the truth/facts of these matters….
The future of Europe, according to UN
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/15/wimm15.xml
At least 2.2 million migrants will arrive in the rich world every year from now until 2050, the United Nations said yesterday. Britain’s population will rise from 60 million to approaching 69 million by 2050 – almost entirely because of immigration. The latest figures from the UN’s population division predict a global upheaval without parallel in human history over the next four decades. […] [T]ens of millions will migrate to Europe and America, while the indigenous populations of most countries in the rich world will either stagnate or decline
Patrick O’Shaughnessy:
‘Bah, hair-splitting. Though the existense of the Holy Spirit might not come into play in the quoted passages, by inference denial of the Holy Spirit’s existence as a valid form of unforgivable blasphemy is not excluded’.
It is not ‘hair-splitting’ to point out when a text is being misunderstood, or deliberately manipulated for ideological purposes.
There is no sense in which one can ‘infer’ from those New Testament texts that denying the *existence* of the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.
Denying the ‘Holy Spirits [sic] existence as a [sic] entity qualified erroneously as a demonic force’ has no relevance to the biblical texts whatsoever.
Just face it: an atheist *cannot* commit an unforgivable sin. You might hate that to be so, but there is, in reality, no easy ‘get out clause’ that will ‘save’ you from the possibility of salvation.
‘Just face it: an atheist *cannot* commit an unforgivable sin. You might hate that to be so, but there is, in reality, no easy ‘get out clause’ that will ‘save’ you from the possibility of salvation.’
Maybe so. But there’s always consequence, as long as you earth-plankton place any kind of value on each other.
Me? I’m too busy spinning planets to give a hoot.
BTW, Dawkins’ claims that I don’t exist are just pure resentment.
He’s been calling on Me for YEARS, but I’ve never answered.
As anyone with half a brain knows, I have ALWAYS reserved communication for psychos, nut-jobs, druggies (both atheist and non) and, of course, George Bush.
>Honour killing of Banaz in UK
“Britain is prepared to turn a blind eye rather than offend the sensibilities of communities.. [that]
..glorify murder as a sacred duty and punish women’s autonomy with death”
This is the result of preaching to people in the West the ideology of “multiculturalism” and moral relativism by their intellectual elites.
Jürgen Habermas:
http://www.signandsight.com/features/1265.html
“Let’s take the example of the recent conflict between Israel and Hizbullah, carried out on Lebanese soil… But aside from sending its foreign policy spokesman Javier de Solana to Beirut and Jerusalem, the EU provided a laughable spectacle with its chorus of dissonant voices.”
There were dissonant voices because different European countries took different views, something Habermas evidently abhors in his quest for ever-closer European Union.
Habermas advocates “a common foreign policy, the creation of joint armed forces and the harmonisation of tax and economic policies to secure our endangered social and cultural standards”.
To this end he argues for a “Europe-wide referendum”:
“The governments – which control the process after all – have to recognize their own powerlessness and, this one time, ‘dare to use democracy.’ They have to rise above themselves and face the political parties of which they themselves are composed with the necessity of engaging in an open, Europe-wide campaign, a struggle for each and every vote in favour of, or in opposition to, an expansion and deepening of the European Union.”
How wonderfully democratic. Habermas would have the EU overcome the opposition (most notably in the UK, though it is pretty strong in several other countries) to “ever-closer Union” by harnessing the steamroller of a Europe-wide referendum in which the democratic wishes of electorates which do not conform to his grandiose view of the European future is crushed by the votes of those who do. Not forgetting that the massive resources of Governments which would support such a referendum would be harnessed to try to ensure the ‘right’ result. No doubt this would not worry Habermas too much, as he evidently thinks that right-thinking, *advanced* people (i.e., those who hold views similar to his own) should impose their vision of the future (for the greater benefit of all, of course – where have I heard that one before?).
I fear that the old-timer Habermas is still under the spell of an out-dated notion of social *tidiness* – let’s *organize* everything so that we all (all the disparate countries of Europe, with very different histories, traditions, and sometimes social attitudes) act as one unit. Habermas’s dream is more like a nightmare to many of us.
Ah, such passion! We are being overrun by ideologues, yelling and screaming at each other with ink. What has science got to do with it? To oppose GM foods does not require one to be anti-science. To oppose the patenting of natural processes is not anti-science. Citing an article from the Cato Institute does however indicate a certain bias toward anti thought on the part of the author.
> Habermans and EU
Denmark voted against the Maastricht treaty twice. Ireland voted against the Nice treaty. Look at many other countries, they are under enormous pressure. It is almost blackmail. It is a trick for idiots.
The people have to vote in referendums until the people vote the way that is wanted. The European Union is what Americans would call a shotgun marriage.
A modification of my previous comment on Habermas’s vision of the European future:
Web-browsing led me back to the Habermas interview, and I see at the very end of it that his immediate “vision” is that the proposed referendum on a single European president, foreign minister, and unified financial base would be binding only on those countries in which the majority of citizens had voted for the reforms. (Does he mean the majority of those who vote, or a genuine majority of the electorate?) Nevertheless for Habermas this is but a strategy for achieving his medium-term vision of a common foreign policy, the creation of joint armed forces and the harmonisation of tax and economic policies.
Europe, what is european ?
French philosopher and cultural critic Alain Finkielkraut thinks that “Europe does not love itself.” Finkielkraut says that it’s not forces from outside that are threatening Europe as much as the voluntary renunciation of European identity, its wish of freeing itself from itself, its own history and its traditions. The European Union thus isn’t just post-national, but post-European. What characterizes Europe today is the will to define itself, not from an ideology, but by dismissing any sense of identity. Europe is now built upon an oath: Never again. Never again extermination, never again war, but also never again nationalism. Europe prides itself in being nothing. According to Finkielkraut, Auschwitz has become part of the foundation of the EU, a culture based on guilt. But this is a vague ideology saying that “We have to oppose everything the Nazis were for.” Consequently, nationalism or any kind of attachment to your own country, including what some would say is healthy, non-aggressive patriotism, is frowned upon. To remember is to regret. Europe rejects its past. “European identity” is the de-identification of Europe. Of the past, we are only to remember crimes. This didn’t just happen in Germany, but in all of Europe. “I can understand the feeling of remorse that is leading Europe to this definition, but this remorse goes too far. It is too great a gift to present Hitler to reject everything that led to him.” This is said by the Jewish son of an Auschwitz prisoner.
Here’s a comment: fuck these people.
They are violently insisting on a special privilege which no other religion, political or ideological leader has. It is hypocritical, because they feel entitled to abuse Jews, Hindus, the West, anyone, if THEY choose to. It is primitive, because it opposes free speech which is maybe the greatest charcateristic of the modern world. It shows psychological denial, because Mohammed was in fact a war lord – not bombs in his turban, but armies and swords at his side. Its wholly unacceptable, and if Moslems want to live in the West they will have to learn to accept its core secular values. Otherwise – go away.
Bernard-Henri Levy:
> Yes, that’s a good way to put it. Europe has certainly lost confidence in itself. This was something that, when I was a young man, we never imagined would happen. But, now it’s clear that we could do ourselves in. And I’m ashamed to say that it’s France leading this new trend, especially by rejecting the constitution. We’re not sure that this project has a future, or at least we’re not sure what it is.< France *leading* this new trend? I doubt the Danes (and others) would agree on that. Trust a Frenchman to give credit to the French. -:)
There is a very readable critique of Paley and his followers in “Darwin’s Watch” by Terry Pratchett et al. This book also contains an amusing fantasy novella.
Joe
>Its wholly unacceptable, and if Moslems want to live in the West they will have to learn to accept its core secular values. Otherwise – go away. >
This would be a normal requirement… in a normal world.
But it doesn’t happen. To the contrary Europe, in the name of political correctness, has abdicated the battle for cultural and religious control.
The Islamists have found a sense of identity and purpose, while we are losing our own to self-denigration and self-abasement.
Even worse, enlightened Muslims as Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Necla Kelek, Bassam Tibi, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali are attacked and maligned in press by our mandarins, our state sponsored-( or Saudi sponsored ?) “intellectuals” in the name of “multiculturalism”.
For instance we had recently at : http://www.signandsight.com/features/1263.html
Arton Gash and Ian Buruma criticizing Ayaan Ali for being “enlightnment fundamentalist”. What a folly, more postmodern, meaningless, word-spinning
It is maddening, disheartening, you don’t now what to do, to laugh at the infinity of human stupidity or to scream and bang your head against the table to know no more.
If it is not deliberate of course and I suspect that this is the case since the same intellectuals embrace and praise the chief ideologue of the Muslim Brotherhood : Tariq Ramadan.
It is a folly and we will pay for it.
This discussion is very interesting. Fundamentalist religion whatever its origin is anathema to intelligent people. Basically I believe that two characteristics distinguish mankind from other animals: language and reason. Fundamentalist religion usually requires “faith” which usually asks you to believe when there is no reason to do so. Many of the massacres described in these letters were carried out to attain or maintain power. That’s history. Right now fundamentalist religion is as large a threat to humanity as climate change. Looked at like this the suicide bomber is the ultimate nihilist.
>Looked at like this the suicide bomber is the ultimate nihilist>.
well, islamic theology is not your thing, sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi [another much praised “moderate” by our university profs experts in Islam as John Esposito, or by only amateurs, as the mayor of London Ken Livingston ] has this to say to you:
“Those who oppose martyrdom operations and claim that they are suicide are making a great mistake. The goals of the who carries out a martyrdom operation and the one who commits suicide are completely different. Anyone who analyzes the soul of [these two] will disover the huge differences between them. The [person who commits] suicide kills himself for himself, because he failed in business, love, examination, and the like. He was to weak to cope with situation and choose to flee life for death…In contrast, [the one who carries a martyrdom operation] sacrifices for the sake of a higer goal, for which all sacrifices become meaningless. He sells himself to Allah in order to buy Paradise in exchange. Allah said : “Allah has bought from the belivers their sould and their properties for they shall inherit the Paradise..”…the one who carries out a martyrdom operation has a clear goal, and that is to please Allah”
Middle East Media Research Institute, Special dispatch no.542, July 24, 2003
But strange enough Qaradawi at [http://www.thememriblog.org/blog_personal/en/1060.htm] seems to agree to the EU newspeak about Islam [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/30/wislam30.xml]
“We are not abolishing the military jihad with the civil jihad, but appropriate statements must be made in the appropriate setting. In another place I call for military jihad and even for martyrdom operations. In the eyes of some people, my blood is permitted because of this. But at the Al-Quds Institute, I call for civil jihad.”