Skip to main content

View Diary: Suspect Identified in Tiller Assassination (292 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  wrong (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    the media is propaganda

    These are not "cold-blooded murderers" any more than the 9-11 hijackers are.  They're very warm-blooded, brave "soldiers" in the name and defense of their God, their faith, and their most sacred beliefs.

    The problem is, their Gods, their faiths, and their most sacred beliefs are total, complete, utter bullshit, and stink like rotting piles of pig vomit.

    Religion is the result of faith.  Faith (and thus religion) is a mental disorder inherent in about 95% of homo sapiens.  Faith is the ability and desire to believe in the irrational without any evidence.  Whether that irrational is Allah, Jesus, Mohammad, Moses, Abraham, Xenu, or the most irrational of all - the Book of Mormon - it really doesn't matter.  The end result is murder and terror and rape and torture and pain, disease, and death.  And worst of all - the hinderance of human advancement.  

    A person of faith can not only in good conscience cause harm, he often has a sacred duty to do so.  Watch the news in the last, ummm, well, ever?  Today's murder of a doctor - himself a person of faith wasting time, money, and energy praising the irrational at his own church - is yet one more example in a pile of billions of others.

    As for the "the vast majority of religious people are harmless" line of reasoning, that's not true.  The vast majority have simply not been given a reason that requires them to cause harm.  Those reasons are usually implanted in the minds of children, and once implanted are impossible to remove.  Moreover, nearly all of them are inherently dangerous, kept at bay only by their fear of going to hell.  Religious people by their very nature lack morality.  Religions are organized, in part, to pray on that moral weakness and keep them in order.  Ever tell a religious person that you're an atheist and they ask "well, if there's no God, heaven, and hell, then what stops us all from killing, raping, and stealing from each other?" - as if I am the one with the desire to do such things.  They are conceding that the only thing that stops them from doing such things is their fear of hell, desire for heaven, and thus belief in god - their faith.  These people are ALL dangerous.  Every last one of them.  

    To call faith-based terrorists mere murderers is woefully ignorant of what they really are.  They're not doing it for blood, with religion as their cover story.  Their brains are deep in prayer-mode up to the very last second before their hijacked plane crashes and explodes.  They "Know" (with the capital K) that they are doing the right thing, what their personal "creator of the universe" wants them to do - in his name - and they have no doubts.  They also Know that the victims are infidels, at war with their god, and that they are striking a blow to those who are at war with their faith/religion/irrationalities.

    Yes, they murder.  But that fact is only seen and understood from a rational AND secular viewpoint.  But let us never forget that RELIGION (in this case, Islam, and not some "radical" minority) crashed airplanes into the WTC and pentagon on 9-11.  It wasn't about money, it wasn't about land, it wasn't about fishing rights, and it wasn't about political or economic disagreements.  They were doing it for Islam, because the Koran told them to.  Jihad = faith based terrorism.

    And we are reminded again, today, that Christians do the same bullshit.  That there is comparably less carnage at the end of the day misses the point.

    •  No, sorry (0+ / 0-)

      You are creating your own definitions to fit your argument. At the same time, you have miscategorized faith simply by calling it what you want it to be, rather than what it is. You are still incorrect to equate faith and religion. Faith is not dependent on religion.

      A person's belief in a religion that is misguided and tells them it is good to cause harm to others is misguided teaching, but not true faith. Blind faith? Maybe, though that term is overused, as you are overusing it. But that is not true faith either.

      For true believers, to equate God with killing, hatred or bigotry is hypocrisy, no matter what their sect tells them. Anyone who follows those teachings is not operating on faith--they have allowed themselves to be brainwashed.

      You have also mischaracterized Islam. The Koran did not "tell" the 911 hijackers to crash their planes. The ringleaders who brainwashed them into believing that their fanaticism would make them "heroes" in the eyes of God told them to do so. They mischaracterized the teachings of Islam. And the weak-minded bought into it. In this case, it was this sect that called for a Holy War (Jihad), not faith. Did they believe what they were told? Yes. Is that true faith? No, it is not.

      Historically, Christianity has done this repeatedly with misinterpretations of the bible. Were the Crusades justified because they were led by the Catholic church? No. Are bigotry, misogyny and homophobia justifiable because people say "it's in the bible"? No. Is it faith or religion that motivates these travesties? Answer: religion. That people believed in their corrupt leaders and teachers has nothing to do with true faith.

      The killers are fanatics. They are irrational, and therefore cannot reason. This is religious brainwashing, I grant you. It is not faith-based terrorism. A catchy phrase, I grant you, but religious fanaticism is not based on faith.

      Barack Obama is my president!

      by RevJoe on Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 06:20:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  so whenever religious people go wacko... (0+ / 0-)

        So whenever a religious person does something you consider bad in the name of their religion/faith, they're just misguided, and not really "true" followers of that religion?  Because according to you, religious people can never do anything you consider to be bad.

        That's got to be the most self-centered, myopic opinion I've ever heard.

        The Koran DID tell the 9-11 hijackers to crash their planes.  There are explicit quotes in the Koran on which they justified their actions.  Kill the infidel, rise up with the sword and slay the enemies of islam, etc.  The problem with all religions is that for each "holy book quote" there is an equal an opposing one.  The Koran is probably the most schizophrenic book ever written (probably due to the nature it was written).  One line will say X, another will say no X, and it's up to the followers to "figure out" which one God wants them to do.  The Bible is the same way.  

        At the end of the day, religious texts can justify absolutely any action.  That's why you have "pro-life" people committing faith-based murder according to the teachings of the Bible.  Of course, the Bible says absolutely nothing about abortion, but try convincing a pro-lifer (a faith-based position) that their religion does not prohibit abortion (and thus require a global prohibition on abortion for everyone no matter their beliefs).  And where you have people acting on their religion, it requires faith in the first place.  

        If you'd prefer I call it "religion-based" murder then I wouldn't disagree.  But religious people themselves picked the monicker "faith-based" for religious based things ("department of faith-based whatever"), and I've never argued with it as a dishonest euphamism (except that in America it means "christian-based").

        You think it takes a "weak mind" to do what the 9-11 hijackers did?  Those people are MANY things, but weak-minded is not one of them.  They were SO SURE that they were doing the right thing, SO SURE that they would go to heaven and get their 72 virgins/raisins, SO SURE that murder was a proper component of their jihad, SO SURE that America was the actual enemy, and SO SURE that they would succeed, their minds were far stronger than any of ours (according to the normal meaning of 'weak mind' as you use it - I of course think all religious people are weak minded so I actually do agree with you in an asymantical way).

        But YOU are the Koran/Islam expert, so since they did something bad, YOU think they must have "mischaracterized" the Koran and Islam.  Because "islam is a religion of peace" right?  All religions are "religions of peace" right?  Unbelievable.  If you are really taking the position that true religious people can do no wrong without either misunderstanding their religions or being woefully misguided, there is really nothing to discuss.  I respectfully suggest you re-think that position.

        We rational, atheist outsiders sometimes like to convince ourselves that the "bad" religious people are simply misguided, simply a radical minority, are not true followers, don't represent their religions, etc.  But that's complete bullshit, meant to be politically correct, so we can discuss faith-based murder and faith-based terrorism without condemning whole religions - which is what we SHOULD be doing.  

        All of Islam is liable for 9-11, and all of Christianity is liable for the murder of doctor Tiller.  Until they re-write their religious texts to make it clear that these types of actions are NOT PROPER and NOT WHAT GOD WANTS, they are selling a flawed, defective product and should be held liable like any other company/reseller under basic principles of product liability.  Just because they've gotten themselves a nice tax-free operating condition does not mean religion is not a business selling a product.  The fact that they usually give away the book for free is entirely irrelevant.  Dr. Tiller's family should be able to the closest church for wrongful death (ironically, that would be Dr. Tiller's own church).  Or, at the very least, the church that the murderer attended (and yes, it's up to the plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the action in question was done in the name of religion, but that normally shouldn't be hard).

        •  There's no point (0+ / 0-)

          arguing with you. My hope was for a civil and courteous discussion, but you chose to argue and use name-calling as your persuasive device. Have at it -- I have no interest in doing that.

          However, it doesn't make you any less wrong, which you still are, BTW.

          Also, it might have been less disingenuous if you had cited your social location as an atheist from the start. Mind you, I have nothing against atheists or agnostics. To each their own.

          But I guarantee you there are proportionally just as many self-described rational atheists who have the same misguided thinking as the wackos from the religious side.

          Barack Obama is my president!

          by RevJoe on Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 12:02:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  huh? I didn't call you any names... (0+ / 0-)

            Where did I call you any names?  I mean, I've never had anyone run away from being called myopic before.  That's a description, not an ad hominem attack or anything like that.  You're implying a tone to my response that isn't there.  

            As for arguing... well, that's the nature of a discussion where the two parties disagree on something.  In fact, that's the definition.  You take offense at my mere disagreement with you?

            As for my own "social location" it should be abundantly clear that I am not religious, because no religious person would be capable of blaming religion (e.g. faith-based) for the bad things religious people do.  They just don't have the ability to perceive the world that way.

            My only big "point" in the previous post is that it is horribly naive to deem yourself the ultimate source of all theocratic knowledge and thus capable of judging when religious people are acting properly according to the teachings of their own religions.  Whenever a Muslim does something you don't like, you say he's not a "real" muslim, or he's "misguided" ... who are you to make that determination?  

            Insofar as extreme acts require extreme faith, as a rule of thumb (though there are exceptions) the most extreme religious people are in fact the most religious.  Who is more representative of their religion, the jew with the beard and kippa who keeps kosher, or the jew without the beard and kippa eating the bacon cheeseburger?  Who is more hindu, the one with the dot on her forehead or the one without the dot on her forehead?  Who is more muslim, the one willing to defend the faith through holy war jihad, or the one who would rather not risk his life for his beliefs?  All else being equal (and it isn't always equal) I take the extremests to be the one who define what their religion is SUPPOSED to be, and how it's followers are supposed to act.  But like I said, that's just a shorthand, a rule of thumb.  

            I'm not calling you any names.  I completely disagree with your position, but we can't have a civil discussion about it?

            (based on my experience, if you're religious then the answer is a clear NO)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (142)
  • Community (67)
  • Elections (41)
  • Bernie Sanders (39)
  • 2016 (38)
  • Environment (38)
  • Hillary Clinton (33)
  • Culture (31)
  • Media (30)
  • Climate Change (29)
  • Republicans (29)
  • Education (24)
  • Congress (23)
  • Spam (23)
  • Labor (22)
  • Barack Obama (22)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Science (21)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Texas (20)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site