Lahore's only Hindu temple razed

[KrazyHorse]

That's putting the invention of American football rather late. Most people trace it back at least 30 years earlier

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
That's putting the invention of American football rather late. Most people trace it back at least 30 years earlier

maybe, but Im not sure why they do, since the game played seems indistinguishable from rugby.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Out of, lets say, the seven religions in CIV, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Confucianism and Taoism have never caused me any problem. Islam and Christianity have.

So what's so 'foolish' about noticing this and pointing it out?

Are you suggesting that given half a chance the Taoists would be trying to ram their religions down my throat like my two non-favourites have?

That's because you don't live in a country that is predominantly or historically Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Confucian, or Taoist. Get you head out of your heiny and try to read up a little on world history.

This is why I have so little respect for the anti-Christian and atheist crap on the internet. It's mostly born of willful ignorance.

[Straybow]

hippocracy would make the world a better place

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


maybe, but Im not sure why they do, since the game played seems indistinguishable from rugby.

Downs and scrimmage

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Islam, I gather, splits the world into the lands of peace (Muslim lands) and the lands of war (yet-to-be Muslim lands). This may just be a feature of the Sharia intolerance, rather than the original Islamic values, in the same way that the original Gnosticism of Christianity was lost to the the Roman Empire's adaptation of the religion for its own ends.

The point is, are we to judge a religion by what it once was in its spiritual and ideological prime, or by how it treats us today?

How dare those modern Christians express their ideology within the political arena and process instead of bowing to yours without question! How dare they trouble your mind with their concepts of morality! You are so oppressed!

Back to reality...

The concept of Dar al Harb is not one of conversion, but one of righteous conquest inherent to Mohammed's teachings. Idolatrous Arabs were to convert or die to purify the race. The Arab Muslims (those who submit) are favored by Allah to rule over all.

At the start of the Crusades the peasants living in Muslim-held lands were still overwhelmingly Christian. Non-Arabs weren't allowed to convert to Islam for nearly two centuries, and weren't encouraged to convert except through Muslim men taking non-Muslim wives for at least a couple centuries more. Proseletyzing of the Christian peasants was sporadic at best.

According to Mohammed, monotheists were to be tolerated as those who ignorantly worship Allah incorrectly (Jews and Christians, amended to include Zoroastrians after Mohammed's death). The real dilemma of conversion came with expansion into polytheistic India and Central Asia. If a king converted (eg, Moghuls) then the king would police the conversion of his own tribe. If not they would be conquered and persecuted.

So modern Islam is still saddled with the concept of Divine Right. Therein lies the heart of the problem.

"original Gnosticism of Christianity" oh, my, that is rich! Christianity was a Jewish sect that accepted Gentile converts without requiring conversion to Judaism, and Gnosticism a Greek derivative in their own philosophical tradition. They share a common vocabulary but little else.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by VJ

I disagree with your presumption that the existance of islam was required for the scientific innovations in question.

Then let us disagree with your presumption that oppression and obscurantism need Islam to exist.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Straybow How dare those modern Christians express their ideology within the political arena and process instead of bowing to yours without question! How dare they trouble your mind with their concepts of morality! You are so oppressed!

What gives Christians the impression that they have a monopoly over morality, and why do they assume that atheists are immoral?

I live by a strict personal morality, which probably overlaps substantially with Christian morality, but don't need the fear of God to enforce it. In fact, seeing as I don't expect any reward for attempting to adhere to those principles, nor any beyond-this-world punishment for ignoring them, I don't think that's such bad going.

If people only behave themselves because they are frightened of divine retribution, why is that better than someone who does so out of nothing but principled morality, and respect and decency towards fellow humans?

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Straybow How dare those modern Christians express their ideology within the political arena and process instead of bowing to yours without question!

Exactly what ideology am I supposed to be insisting that Christians bow to? I've nothing against Christians, Muslims or anyone else getting on quietly with their thing. What I object to is attempts to forcefully subject me to their ideology.

Look, I take the point that because I haven't lived in a Taoist autocracy (assuming such a thing exists), lectured and hectored by Buddhists, or attempted to be blown up by Hindu fundamentalists, then that would explain why those religions haven't upset me. So, I accept that maybe all other religions can be as annoying and intimidating as the one's I'm moaning about.

However, I do believe in a secular state, so I oppose Christian, Muslim, and any other fundamentalists who try to force their ideology through the political arena. If that bothers you so much then we have to agree to differ.

{grammar edit for clarification}

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Proof , please ?

Uh, did you not see the example at the end there?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


Exactly what ideology am I supposed to be insisting that Christians bow to? I've nothing against Christians, Muslims or anyone else getting on quietly with their thing. What I object to is attempts to forcefully subject me to their ideology.

You want them to shut up.

What are you doing?

Or do I have this wrong.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by notyoueither


You want them to shut up.

What are you doing?

Or do I have this wrong.

I don't want to stop anyone having their beliefs, or even using peaceful and non-legislative methods to persuade others of the benefits of their beliefs.

What am I doing? Well, it seems I'm getting flamed for being an atheist, so I'm defending myself. Quite why I'm doing this when I could be doing something more useful, I've no idea ....

[notyoueither]

I'm not flaming you. I am pointing out that you seem to need to have your ideas reflected in government and they must not have any of theirs or you will get upset.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Uh, did you not see the example at the end there?

As far as I know , the abacus never found its way into India .

[Mr. Harley]

LOTM - to avoid a total threadjack, just two little points.

You don't address my point that seizure of land by the Jewish government in 1948 is not justified by the seizure of Jewish property by Arab Governments - which was implicit to your original post.

Secondly, and more germanely - if it was acceptable to seize the land of the Arabs who left - some voluntarily, some in fear of the Arab militaries, who were not notoriously gentle with civilians, and some who were driven out because the Jewish pseudo-military forces wanted to, and from a military aspect needed to, secure certain areas - then should the various property of Jews seized when they left various parts of Europe ahead of the Nazi occupations NOT be returned. They "voluntarily" left.

Secondly, ask you Bedoiun in the Negev, who have fought for Isreal, about the seizure of property. No, the property was not "seized". Their villages were not recognized, therefore their land has no "owners", and now it is being "developed" by various entities, including the government, that are all Jewish.

Lastly, there has been no Arab property seized for the settlements on the West Bank. If, after building the settlement, you then build roads across other people's lands with no compensation, you take their water rights, and you bulldoze their olive groves as security zones for the settlement you chose to build, I guess you can argue you didn't "take" anyones land. Right.

You'll rebut, I'll post, and we can hijack the entire thread. If you want, we can post our own thread, though we've had this argument before - remember the water rights one where I posted from a Jewish sorce, and I am NOT talking about the historian you challeneged, who reviewed that attitude of the Israeli government's so-called negotiators. Sadly, though, no matter what facts I post I am not going to change your mind, and you have yet to find a fact-based cite that will convince me that the ethnic cleansing of Isreal in 1948, nor the administation of the occupied territories, are justified - except by Zionist principles, which are utterly intolerant. Note I have always granted the necessity of the 1948 and 1968 conflicts - just not the actions taken against the civilian populations.