UN Workers 'Beheaded' In Afghan Koran Protest

[Serafina]

There is a lot of nasty, vile stuff in the Koran. Therefore, according to Darth Hoth, it should be burned.
There is a lot of nasty, vile stuff in the Bible. Therefore, according to Darth Hoth, it should be burned.

Oh, wait, you're only arguing the former, despite both cases being almost identical. Gee, i wonder why?

[Tanasinn]

I see Thanas and Serafina are using the time-tested Christ-crazy argument that criticism of Christianity secretly springs from support of Islam, only they've inverted it. That's a nice trick, but it's the same old doesn't-fucking-work argument as always. This discussion is about Islam, that Christianity is deplorable as well is irrelevant albiet true.

That people and cultures connected to Islam were once responsible for great scientific achievements is meaningless. The same could be said of Christianity. Neither faith deserves credit as anything more than cultural background music that happened to be playing at the time.

[Darth Hoth]

On its own, it is neither any more or less regressive than the bible, or many other great works of literature. I am sure you do not argue for the burning of books of Jane Austen on the basis that her characters find fulfillment in marriage, do you? Or for the books of James Feminore Cooper for demonizing the Iroquis? Or for the burning of the Codex Iustinianus because it prohibits homosexuality? No, you are pretty much cherrypicking stuff out of context.

And here we see the patented Thanas method of debate known as the Apples and Oranges Comparison in action.

First, of those only the latter would be even remotely comparable (as containing explicit orders to actually murder people for various crimes against its ideology).

Second, the moment there springs up a large group of extremists who hold the Codex Justinianus (or for that matter the Codex Theodosius) as their inerrant holy book and want to reform present-day society after the pattern of its every dot and letter, you may rest assured that I will certainly attack it as well.

At that point, your comparison of it with the Koran will also have attained some relevance to our present discussion.

Of course, I do not see you arguing for lifting your country's ban on that oldtime bestseller, the Mein Kampf. Why is that?

They are not, or at least not the vast majority of them.

So it is perfectly all right to incite to murder if only you do not do it "too much" in a given manifesto? Once is enough for me to condemn the whole book. And the Koran does it much more often than that. In addition to promoting slavery, religious intolerance and assorted socially regressive values and institutions.

[Thanas]

On its own, it is neither any more or less regressive than the bible, or many other great works of literature. I am sure you do not argue for the burning of books of Jane Austen on the basis that her characters find fulfillment in marriage, do you? Or for the books of James Feminore Cooper for demonizing the Iroquis? Or for the burning of the Codex Iustinianus because it prohibits homosexuality? No, you are pretty much cherrypicking stuff out of context.

And here we see the patented Thanas method of debate known as the Apples and Oranges Comparison in action.

First, of those only the latter would be even remotely comparable (as containing explicit orders to actually murder people for various crimes against its ideology).

Second, the moment there springs up a large group of extremists who hold the Codex Justinianus (or for that matter the Codex Theodosius) as their inerrant holy book and want to reform present-day society after the pattern of its every dot and letter, you may rest assured that I will certainly attack it as well.

At that point, your comparison of it with the Koran will also have attained some relevance to our present discussion.

Because the vast majority of muslims living in the western world of course promote the Koran and the most violent form of Djihad? Are you that stupid? Or maybe, maybe the attitudes have less to do with the Koran than with the various societies people live in?

Of course, I do not see you arguing for lifting your country's ban on that oldtime bestseller, the Mein Kampf. Why is that?

Because there are enough neo-nazis around? BTW, it is not banned for scientific purposes or historical discussions, so I do not see your point here.

So it is perfectly all right to incite to murder if only you do not do it "too much" in a given manifesto? Once is enough for me to condemn the whole book. And the Koran does it much more often than that. In addition to promoting slavery, religious intolerance and assorted socially regressive values and institutions.

Ah yes, of course it is completely acceptable to seperating a work from its time....Care to show me the vast majority of muslims in the west owning slaves? Or promoting religious intolerance?

[Thanas]

That people and cultures connected to Islam were once responsible for great scientific achievements is meaningless. The same could be said of Christianity. Neither faith deserves credit as anything more than cultural background music that happened to be playing at the time.

That people and cultures connected to western democracies were once responsible for great scientific achievements is meaningless. None of them deserves credit as anything more than cultural background music that happened to be playing at a time. Because science is of course disconnected of its surroundings and arises no matter the circumstances.

Do you agree with that as well?

[Darth Hoth]

There is a lot of nasty, vile stuff in the Koran. Therefore, according to Darth Hoth, it should be burned.
There is a lot of nasty, vile stuff in the Bible. Therefore, according to Darth Hoth, it should be burned.

Oh, wait, you're only arguing the former, despite both cases being almost identical. Gee, i wonder why?

In my mind, they are not "almost identical". The Christian Bible does, in my honest and humble opinion, present an objectively better moral message than the Koran.

However, as I have never denied before, but on the contrary stated quite clearly at multiple occasions, the Christian Bible is assuredly an intolerant tome that calls for death and murder on many people who are innocent of any crime against secular law. If it was written today, it would without doubt be justly condemned as a hate-speech tract.

As I said when Bakustra tried to pull this crap on me: "Oh, no! I guess I am not only an anti-Islamic bigot, but now an anti-Christian bigot as well!"

Throw in "anti-Judaic" as well for good measure. The Talmud is even kookier than Bible and Koran put together (though not necessarily more violent or intolerant).

***

However, fun as these little meta-discussions are, you are still indulging in a red herring. As Tanasinn pointed out, this discussion is about Islam, and more specifically the Koran, not Christianity or Judaism.

[Tanasinn]

That people and cultures connected to western democracies were once responsible for great scientific achievements is meaningless. None of them deserves credit as anything more than cultural background music that happened to be playing at a time. Because science is of course disconnected of its surroundings and arises no matter the circumstances.

Do you agree with that as well?

I don't believe that democracy inherently drives scientific progress, so yes. Science has progressed in nations ruled by a variety of different forms of government throughout history. A fun example might be the Soviet Union's early triumphs in the space race.

[Darth Hoth]

Because the vast majority of muslims living in the western world of course promote the Koran and the most violent form of Djihad? Are you that stupid? Or maybe, maybe the attitudes have less to do with the Koran than with the various societies people live in?

Firstly, no matter what apologist spin you seek to put on it, there is assuredly a large number of Muslims who use the Koran as their justification to murder and oppress people. The same is not true for the Codex Justinianus (or whatever). So your previous post was still a gratuitous red herring.

Secondly, and I have by now stated this multiple times, I do not care right now how "enlightened" Muslims might reinterpret the Koran, or just plain ignore it. My issue is with the text itself and what it actually says.

Because there are enough neo-nazis around? BTW, it is not banned for scientific purposes or historical discussions, so I do not see your point here.

And am I then to take it that there are not "enough" Koran-adherent Muslims around?

Building on that: How many would there have to be, in order for you to be in favour of banning the book?

Ah yes, of course it is completely acceptable to seperating a work from its time....Care to show me the vast majority of muslims in the west owning slaves? Or promoting religious intolerance?

What is your point? The Koran condones, encourages and in fact, orders these things, even if many modern liberal Muslims do not follow up on it. This makes it a vile tome. What part of this do you not understand? Would Mein Kampf be a splendid document of peace and harmony if there was a substantial number of "liberal Nazis" around who held it sacred, but without actually acting on it?

Or would it still be the racist manifesto of an evil ideology, that some of its ideological descendants were less than faithful in interpreting?

[Serafina]

In my mind, they are not "almost identical". The Christian Bible does, in my honest and humble opinion, present an objectively better moral message than the Koran.

Have you even READ the Koran?
If so, explain why the Bible is supposedly teaching a superior morality when compared to the Koran.

You're also arguing that the Koran is widely used as a justification for murder, hate-crimes and similar atrocities.
The same is true of the Bible, just look at christian fundamentalists. Again, equal things should be treated equally, unless you are not objective.

As I said when Bakustra tried to pull this crap on me: "Oh, no! I guess I am not only an anti-Islamic bigot, but now an anti-Christian bigot as well!"

Throw in "anti-Judaic" as well for good measure. The Talmud is even kookier than Bible and Koran put together (though not necessarily more violent or intolerant).

You are a bigot because you are elevating one hate-mongering religion above another hate-mongering religion. You are not motivated by objectivity, otherwise you would not do so.

However, fun as these little meta-discussions are, you are still indulging in a red herring. As Tanasinn pointed out, this discussion is about Islam, and more specifically the Koran, not Christianity or Judaism.

How is pointing out your double-standard a red herring?
Suppose we were talking about the treatment of black people due to "demographic factor X". You're arguing that due to Factor X, it is okay to treat them in an inferior way to white people, despite Factor X applying to them as well . Would it be a red herring to point out your double standard?

If you are presenting an objective point, that point should be equally applicable to equal situations. Since you are not willing to apply your standard to equal situations, it is not an objective standard.

[Darth Hoth]

Have you even READ the Koran?

Yes. From cover to cover, and some surahs more than once. Although I have obviously read the Bible more, to be better able to debate Christian friends and relatives.

If so, explain why the Bible is supposedly teaching a superior morality when compared to the Koran.

We are far enough off topic as it is. If you wish, you can have a look at this thread, in which the matter was discussed.

If you still have questions afterwards, I would be glad to address them by PM or in a new thread. But as it is, we are derailing the present discussion.

You are a bigot because you are elevating one hate-mongering religion above another hate-mongering religion. You are not motivated by objectivity, otherwise you would not do so.

Two hate-mongering religions can still have different amounts and degrees of hate-mongering in them. I believe that to be the case with Christianity and Islam.

[Thanas]

We are far enough off topic as it is. If you wish, you can have a look at this thread, in which the matter was discussed.

If you still have questions afterwards, I would be glad to address them by PM or in a new thread. But as it is, we are derailing the present discussion.

Who made you a mod? You have no power to dictate anything to anybody. Keep derailing, if necessary someone (maybe even me) will split it.

[Darth Hoth]

We are far enough off topic as it is. If you wish, you can have a look at this thread, in which the matter was discussed.

If you still have questions afterwards, I would be glad to address them by PM or in a new thread. But as it is, we are derailing the present discussion.

Who made you a mod? You have no power to dictate anything to anybody. Keep derailing, if necessary someone (maybe even me) will split it.

It was the result of polite concern for the thread, nothing more. If I have in any way acted untowardly, I apologise.

[Serafina]

We are far enough off topic as it is. If you wish, you can have a look at this thread, in which the matter was discussed.

If you still have questions afterwards, I would be glad to address them by PM or in a new thread. But as it is, we are derailing the present discussion.

Sorry, i don't see any evidence or convincing argument there.
Your point there boils down to "the Koran is smaller while containing about as much bad stuff as the Bible, therefore it is worse".
That misses the point entirely: The Bible and the Koran are advocating the same atrocities. How much space they need to do so is irrelevant, as is other content unless you can show that it is mitigating the advocated crimes against humanity (which you can't, you can't make murder okay by working in a orphan home either). Furthermore, your argument is "they can be used to justify atrocities". Positive morals in the Bible (as if they don't exists in the Koran ) do not prevent it from being used as justification for crimes against humanity, as history shows quite sufficiently.

Two hate-mongering religions can still have different amounts and degrees of hate-mongering in them. I believe that to be the case with Christianity and Islam.

Yes, of course one can be worse than the other. And i suppose it's completely random that your entirely arbitrary cutoff-point just happens to be between the fine differences between the Koran and the Bible, right?
You have failed to present any objective standard. Your argument that it's okay to burn the Koran as hate-literature, but neither the Bible or the Talmud is completely arbitrary.

[Darth Hoth]

Sorry, i don't see any evidence or convincing argument there.
Your point there boils down to "the Koran is smaller while containing about as much bad stuff as the Bible, therefore it is worse".
That misses the point entirely: The Bible and the Koran are advocating the same atrocities. How much space they need to do so is irrelevant, as is other content unless you can show that it is mitigating the advocated crimes against humanity (which you can't, you can't make murder okay by working in a orphan home either). Furthermore, your argument is "they can be used to justify atrocities". Positive morals in the Bible (as if they don't exists in the Koran ) do not prevent it from being used as justification for crimes against humanity, as history shows quite sufficiently.

Both advocate horrible atrocities. The Bible, however, does so less consistently than the Koran. That makes it better, in my opinion, in that hateful, intolerant and murderous messages are not hammered home in almost every chapter the way they are in the Koran. (Compare, for example, the number of Koran surahs that talk about hell with the number of chapters in the Bible that does.)

However, I do agree with you that both books are monstrously hateful and intolerant by our present-day, modern, secular standards. And both do advocate murder and genocide, which I also said in the cited thread. The Bible is better than the Koran, but saying so is only damning it by faint praise.

Yes, of course one can be worse than the other. And i suppose it's completely random that your entirely arbitrary cutoff-point just happens to be between the fine differences between the Koran and the Bible, right?
You have failed to present any objective standard. Your argument that it's okay to burn the Koran as hate-literature, but neither the Bible or the Talmud is completely arbitrary.

Um? Burn away all the Bibles and Talmuds and whatever all you like, as long as you pay for them in the store. The reason I do not agitate overmuch against other "holy" books in this thread is that it is not about them. It is about Koran burnings.

[Crossroads Inc.]

[WARNING: personal opinion ahead]

Ok...

So normally I stay out of debates and wouldn't touch something like this with a 10 foot pole. But... I do wish to make a personal observation/opinion.

That being, that both the Koran and the Bible are equal parts full of haterd, bigotry, abominations, and issuing others to go forth and slay the unbelievers. In "the past" the Arabic world was the center of higher learning, and great advances in math and science and astronomy. While in the west we had the middle ages and didn't get going till the renaissance.

However in modern times it seems undeniable that the Arab world has become more 'thin skinned' in a land that has a histroy of brutal dictators, bad enviroment, sand, heat and rampant tribalism. Whereas in the west, the abrahmic religions have spread among prosperous areas that have had a different enviroment as it where.

The point I am getting at? Well, this may be a case of 'nature vs nuture' IE, if you went back in time and swaped the Bible with the Koran, 2000 years later things may be similar to how they are now but with reversed relgions. In America you would have people going around with crescent moons instead of fish, there would be "What Would Mohammed Do" bumper stickers. People like Pat Robertson would be holding marathons rasing money for Allah and Arabic style crystal cathedrals.

Basically, BOTH relgions could spawn the vile acts we see done "in the name" of Islam, but it does not mean Islam is any inherently worse then christianity. If the religion was reversed, we may still seem the same sort of acts done in the name of Jesus as we do in the name of Allah. That it is not a relgious based factor but simply inherent in that part of the world.

It is the way things have been before Islam and may be after Islam.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I live in Gainesville. This guy has been a provocateur for years. He has like a 30-person cult church and marched his armies of cretins onto campus wearing "ISLAM IS OF THE DEVIL" T-shirts four or five years ago. There have been protests against his open media-whoring. I wish they would refuse to give him a platform, but I don't think there is a legal basis (nor should be) to attack him.