Patriarchal Religion, Domestic Violence And A Beheading In Buffalo

Poor pathetic slob

For crying out loud, you people, leace Farnaz alone. If you really believe he/she/it is an imposter, then just ifnore him/her/it!

This is getting really old!

Irvi,

I love it.
Both you and Yael1 just happened to be watching that whole Elie Wiesel thread well enough to know all of the intimate details of what everyone said, but neither of you posted a word? Both of you stating that you "just didn't have the stomach to post"? Both of you leaving Farnaz all on her own as you watched silently? But now you come out of the wood work in Farnaz' absence to tell us all that she was right all along and to note who was helpful and who was not to her oh so righteous cause and accusations?

You poor pathetic slob. Sick demented delusional troll.

There you go, Justilthen. There you have it.
Do you need any more proof that Irvi is Farnaz? And that Farnaz is a looney tunes blog troll?

Justilthen:

"YOU NOT RECOGNIZE that you lost your balls to a bi bi itch? (The value of ovaries not demeaned in this last comment!)"

Sorry, but I don't agree, even if that means that the Conspiracy Theorists think I'm Farnaz, Onofrio, and Joe Biden again. Farnaz encountered the ugliest anti-Semitism I've seen on this blog in the last couple of years, mainly, but not only on the Elie Wiesel thread, where, to tell the truth I didn't have the stomach to blog.
I'M SORRY FARNAZ. I SHOULD HAVE. She used different strategies on different threads just like she said. She tried being reasonable, educative, and confrontational. There were plenty of bi bi itches around here, male and female, plenty of bi bi itch watchers, and Farnaz wasn't one of them.

Two (2) Christians helped occasionally, or maybe 3. Throughout the barrage, none of the other followers of Jesus helped to confront the evil all around the blog. None of the atheists, no Muslims, Hindus, etc. Pretty sad, isn't it, when she was always standing up for them?

Like you said the other day, there was anti-Semitism, galore. Where were you and I? Where were we all? Sounds familiar doesn't it?

Yeah, people lost their b'lls and ovaries. And some still haven't gotten them back, still standing by watching Jew hating, then whining about that one lady, the one lady through the whole damned thing who had guts. It was fitting that Elie Wiesel was blogging because at OnFaith it was NIGHT. Jesus wept.

Justilthen,

Take a chill pill dude.

Do you think that your post just added something of value to the forum?

Your comment might have some validity had it come in the middle of many other posts by you of substance and on topic, but if it is your only contribution then aren't you just the pot calling the kettle black?

Why don't you post something interesting to chew on instead of doing exactly what you are admonishing others for? You complain about people talking about Farnaz and all you do is talk about people talking about Farnaz?

In case you hadn't noticed the last several posts are back to discussion form, and you are welcome to participate if you like. I'm pretty sure it was over until you brought it up again.

To all seekers of pain.

Scrolling down today, walking in the park, sniffing the wind and catching the scent of the day, the bloom of the flowers coming, Spring on Her Way....

And I keep getting slapped in the face by the same s hit...

A frigggggin name.

All you bi itches are STILL talking about is Farnaz.

DO YOU NOT RECOGNIZE that you lost your balls to a bi bi itch? (The value of ovaries not demeaned in this last comment!)

Stop it people... Do you so need an enemy combatant that you go to this length? Why not invade, then? Is that what you what?

HOW MUCH POWER do you want to donate to a tax exempt non-entity?

THIS is what is BOOOOORING.

Amateur night at the debate club.

Irvi,

"My guess is that boundaries play the major role in their mutual hositilities: These are two groups who view themselves as competing for the same economic space. And the real beneficiaries, the dragons I mention below, roar on.."

Hey we agree!

But these are not cultural differences. The reasons for the fear and loathing are not due to differences in their culture. "Boundaries" are not differences in culture. Competing for economic space is not differences in culture.

Perhaps we are having a semantics problem here. The word "differences" can be used to mean "conflicts". But I am using it literally. Differences, meaning things that are different in one culture vs the other.

What differences from one culture to the next cause fear and loathing that are not religious based?

Language is one. We have one example of a war that could be seen to have been primarily about language.

But what other cultural differences like language, food, clothing, hairstyle, etc.. that are not religion related, cause fear and loathing, between cultures?

Timmy2:

Re: Your most recent inquiry

I don't know where you live exactly, but where I do, there are many Puerto Ricans and Domincans. The real basis of their animosity toward one another is something neither I nor they (seem to) know. I can tell you the sorts of things some of each group say to and about one another, but as is usual in such cases, sneers reveal little. My guess is that boundaries play the major role in their mutual hositilities: These are two groups who view themselves as competing for the same economic space. And the real beneficiaries, the dragons I mention below, roar on.... I've spoken to a couple of folks from these ethnic groups, and they tell me I've got a good working "hypothesis," consistent with what we've seen in similar situations, historically.

To be more optimistic, we see some "intermarriage," between the two groups but, historically, that, too, has gone with the territory. Maybe, as their economic status continues to improve, the dislike they have for one another will decline.

Ivri5768, the "poor pathetic slob"

Irvi,

"Oh, yeah, Brainiac? And the "fear and loathing" Dominicans feel when Puerto Ricans move in and vice versa?

Are you saying it's language?
What is it, Braniac?
You tell me. You brought it up.
What is this fear and loathing you speak of that Dominicans feel when Puerto Ricans move in and visa versa?
What is the cause? Don't tell me what it isn't. Tell me what it is.
Got an answer Brainiac?

Can you name a religion that does not claim to know the truth of the "ought"?

Should making such claims be frowned upon?
Should we not accept that the "ought" eludes us for the time being, if there is such a thing?
Is it not troublesome for groups to claim knowledge of the one true "ought"? (Moral authority)
Should such behavior be looked upon as virtuous, or poisonous, or benign?

I'm say poisonous.

Timmy2:

An impressive post. Although evidently not meant for me, I wonder if I may add this thought. "Isms" and "archys" exist, at least in large part, to maintain economic privelge. From there it is a short step to ideology, "discourse," and hegemony. Nations develop and support sometimes competing economic interests directly or indirectly, creating conflict within and across borders which exploit difference, when and as necessary.

Keep 'em fighting each other over whose got the bigger whatever or who's persecuting whom so they don't look up to see who the real dragon is. Better yet, have them at each other's throats so the dragon can breath (fire) free.

Ivri5768

Timmy,

A comprehensive manifesto, this, which I would not wish to gainsay.

Ambitious, idealistic, passionate, hopeful, almost prophetic.

What's there not to like?

The "semantic differences" you cite, from my perspective, all go back to the distinction between *spirituality* and *religion*. You use those terms in a sharply dualistic way; I - and probably some others - do not. On that we can agree to disagree.

As for the rest, it would be churlish of me indeed to cavil at such a vision. I am not always a churl.

Thank you.

There you go Onofrio, there's some real meat for you to chew on.
Be kind. :)

Continued from below>

As for religion, freedom of religion will remain in perpetuity, as it should. No government by the people for the people should ever suffer from the delusion that it can control what people believe. But I think that organized group religion is a major barrier to reaching the end goal of one human race and one human society. Why? Because it is a tribalistic battle for control over "the *ought*.

The *ought*, is the thing that we don't have. And those who claim to have it, organized into a group, is the fundamental element of religion that is the trouble making A-Bomb with a gasoline soaked fuse. This is my problem with religion (not spirituality). People who get upset with me for criticizing all religion do so because they think that I am throwing the baby out with the bath water. But I see the baby as spirituality and human wisdom, and religion as the dirty doctrinal bath water. I want religion to get out of spirituality's way. More importantly I want religion to have it's power over, and manipulation of spirituality, taken away from it's ugly hands.

Perhaps our differences are all semantics. I think that a civil human society needs to accept that the "ought" is unprovable, and must therefore be left to a combination of individual belief, and an ever evolving democratically decided societal policy to deal with the "ought" for the collective.

And in such a society, groups claiming to hold the truth to the "ought" should be dismissed and even scoffed at unless they can provide credible evidence that can withstand the most thorough scrutiny employable. It should be an egregious assault on the intelligence and trust of the people for anyone to claim to have knowledge of the truth of the "ought".

It should not be illegal. But it should be considered arrogant, and delusional behavior.

It's the" I don't know and neither do you" deal.
Because if any of us ever discover the truth of the "ought", the rest of us will know too. It will be universally obvious.

Wars would not happen if humans were not separated into groups, or tribes. Individual conflicts would still occur, resolvable through a legal system. And political battles (non violent, nay, constructive) would continue. However these political battles would be far less tainted by the added factor of geopolitical tensions between nations competing for global hegemony. My intuition tells me that our ability to find a political system that is a fair balance between free market and social conscience, or whatever it turns out is the best political system for governing peoples, will be greatly aided by the elimination of borders and groups and tribes, and other falsely perceived differences and dividers of humanity from our ancient tribal past.

My intuition tells me that there is a best system of governance for the people by the people to be found, and that it is universally beneficial to all people, and all living things. A sustainable (save natural disaster) and mutually beneficial way of life for all of us shipmates on this rudderless ship.

I do not understand this idea that different peoples require different styles of governance. You lose me at "different kind of peoples". There should be one style of governance for all peoples on this planet. That is not a totalitarian statement. Such a thing should come about naturally and peacefully and this is big big picture, generations and generations, but it is surely the best goal to aim for.

Unless of course you have this idea that people of different races, and ethnicities and cultures are fundamentally different in some way by which they require a different style of governance. Cultures are different because we were separated, not because are different. With air travel and the internet, cultures are merging again. This is a good thing. Standing in the way is racism, ethnicism, nationalism, and organized religion.

Timmeroo and Tyler2,

Sorry I can't wait for a reply, but I gotta go. I'm done with the Conspiracy Theory, though, so don't expect a chat w/me on that.Also, I don't argue for the sake of argument, so concede when I'm in error, etc., and engage only those bloggers who do the same. Prefer Rogerian argumentation, in fact, a point to bear in mind if you want to have an authentic, on point discussion w/Moi.

Will Snark when Snarked at, but don't like it and am ending it with you here and now.

Rod IYWMB Stewart, the "poor pathetic slob"

Tippecanoe and Timmy2:

"I said it was the only CULTURAL difference between groups that causes fear and loathing and suspicion."

Oh, yeah, Brainiac? And the "fear and loathing" Dominicans feel when Puerto Ricans move in and vice versa? Same religions, "races," etc., Einstein. Or is it Sherlock?

BBOOORRRINNNGGGG

Rod IYWMB Stewart

Timmy2:

I don't see the point in cherry picking, never have never will. Religion didn't cause the war in Bangladesh, the American Revolution, etc. Sorry, Bro, just not interested in the topic. If that makes me a "poor pathetic slob" so be it.

BOOORRRRRIIIINNNNGGGGG

Rod If You Want My Body Stewart

PS.You're gonna have to choose somebody else's leg to masturbate about Farnaz on.

Irvi,

"Timmy2 thinks I'm Farnaz because I pointed up a problem in his argument and he can't live with it"

Timmy2 KNOWS you are Farnaz, because the Farnaz tone and grammar is unmistakable. You poor pathetic slob.

YOU: Btw., I could've chosen any number of wars as evidence for my point"

You mean all of those other linguistic wars? I challenged you to come up with more examples and you failed.

YOU: "The religion causing all wars discussion isn't terribly interesting to me to tell the truth"

Who's having that discussion? I certainly never said anything about religion causing all wars. I said it was the only CULTURAL difference between groups that causes fear and loathing and suspicion. You provided an example of one war between two extremely religious peoples in which language played a significant role. I concede that language is a cultural difference and that it was a significant factor in this war.

Then I asked if you could name any other wars over language and you of course could not. So now I my original statement has one very sketchy exception. All rules have exceptions. My statement about cultural differences being benign, save religion, stands, with one sketchy exception, until I see more examples.

Again I am not saying that religion is the sole cause of all wars. That would be a straw man all too easy to thrash. My actual comment is a little harder to dispute.

DITLD:

You'll need to scroll down to read my posts on Bangladesh, the Roma, the Crusades--all of which are on this thread. Hope it's all clear now.
Outta here.

I am really confused. I feel that it is probably best not to say anything.

I wish Susan would say something.

DITLD:

I don't know whether you'd agree or not, but aside from being uninteresting, the CCNL, Timmy2 "topic at hand" (Conspiracy) is irrelevant to the topic of the blog. That's a topic I'd like to engage in its different dimensions and would if I had more time.

As for Arminius,he posted to me about Bangladesh. I answered him with a question, and now he's joined the merry duo, or is it trio? The Moderate?

Either way, this is the best I can do re the Conspiracy Theory as a blog topic. I'm done with it after this, but not with a couple of Mosquitoes, whom I'll be visiting from time to time with repellent.

Meanwhile, I'll be checking in to see if anything worth discussing comes up. This Konspiracy krap is silly and I'm fully grown.

Ivri

FARNAZ:

COME BACK, PLEASE. SCROLL DOWN. I POSTED TO YOU. I'M GOING UNDER THE MONIKER OF ROD IF YOU WANT MY BODY STEWART.

Ivri

Onofrio:

Those were nice things you said about Farnaz.I understand why you don't wanna be her, but you didn't say why you don't wanna be me.Nothing personal, I presume? :)

DITLD:

Concerning you inquiry on my posting to Farnaz, I'm not interested in chatting with her about "anything going on here," if by that you mean the Conspiracy Theorists, those who attack her for being anti-Islamist, she who's married to a Muslim, those who attack her for being anti-Christian, she who rammed Sally Quinn over the communion business, etc.I wouldn't ask her to expend grey matter on this idiocy,which,doesn't much interest me anyway.

I've been blogging here since before Farnaz came. She lit things up. She's smart, interesting, and won't put up with racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Islamism, etc. Bigots against Jews always think they're the victims.Bigots against Blacks always think they're the victims.Btw.,some Christians have always accused Jews of being "anti-Christian."

I posted to Farnaz because she never blogged on Bangladesh, but has on Pakistan and India. Roger Cohen's piece was about Iran. Farnaz comes from Iran. I wanted her opinion and still do.

CCNL says I'm Farnaz because I dissed him, and I'm not done.Timmy2 thinks I'm Farnaz because I pointed up a problem in his argument and he can't live with it. Btw., I could've chosen any number of wars as evidence for my point. I chose Bangladesh, hoping to lure Farnaz if she's reading this thread, which I kinda doubt.The religion causing all wars discussion isn't terribly interesting to me to tell the truth.

Onofrio,

"I would love to see Farnaz return"

She has.

YOU: ""O for a return to the topic at hand, or, at least, some edifying or even merely witty tangential digression. Not this stale old-groundery""

This was my lament during the Farnaz era. All I wanted to do was discuss the topics on point, and all you and Farnaz wanted to do was exchange mocking poetry and semantic belly dancing meant to label bloggers and drive away any views that opposed her agenda. Things got back to a civil discussion about the topic at hand for a while after she departed, and now here is our first real distraction since then. I really wish that it did not become obvious that Irvi was Farnaz, and we could have stayed on topic. In fact I recognized it long before CCNL brought it up, but wasn't saying anything for this very reason.

But I do understand why her return in disguise has caused a stir here.
People are wary. People do not like getting duped. Fool me once....

To Farnaz/Observer12/Observer31/Yael1/ivri5678/Onofrio/etc/ad infinitum nauseamque:

Have the guts to reveal yourself, stop hiding behind false names and your cheerleader squad.

All the fulsome praise of Farnaz did conveniently forget to mention her/his/their virulent hatred of all things Christian. I got very tired of being constantly accused of being a serial jew raper/killer, book stealer, and someone who has sex with goats. And living in a swamp. No discussion, just violent ad hominem attacks. Farnaz is NOT a nice person, she/he/they make CCNL look benign and Spidey seem downright friendly.

"SCROLL DOWN AND READ MY POSTS..."

"DID YOU READ ROGER COHEN IN TODAY'S TIMES?"

These references do not relate to anything here, and don't make sense.

Ivri,

I would love to see Farnaz return.

Why do I not want to be mistaken for her?

It's a matter of truth. I'm naff/naif enough to care about that. If I am to be erased, I would like it to be on my own terms, though of course that's probably expecting too much.

Besides, Farnaz is brilliant; I am a mere punter. It galls me that certain vocal threadlings cannot tell the difference. I've been adding my rather pedestrian, non-fey comments here and there on this thread. But to some it is unacceptable to deal with Onofrio-ordinaire except to question his existence.

It's as if they want to make Farnaz pay, so to speak, for all the broken crockery, in absentia. So in lieu they virtually rough up the nearest thing to Farnaz, which they've convinced themselves is Onofrio. Doesn't matter how he behaves, they've found his weak spot - fear of erasure - and they prod it with studied precision.

O for a return to the topic at hand, or, at least, some edifying or even merely witty tangential digression. Not this stale old-groundery.

"She didn't like homophobia, sexism, racism, anti-Islamism, etc. Me neither. Gotta problem with that? Bring it on."

You left out Christians and Muslims. She didn't like them either. So I guess if she didn't like anti-Islamists too then she was a self loathing individual. But I guess self loathing comes with the territory when you have multiple personalities.

Farnaz,

You're blowing through this new identity too quickly. You're supposed to get some more use out of it first before exposing your looney side.

PS: Watch out! There's a swamp thing right behind you!

Farnaz aka Observer12 aka Observer31 aka Yael1 aka ivri5678 apparently had a bit too much to drink this morning. Always good to avoid drunks!!

BTW,CCNL Mosquito's multiple identity theory eminates from my recent dissing of him/it on this and the main threads.

AND, CCNL, I'M NOT DONE.

Yo, Theorists,

Yeah,Farnaz didn't like anti-Semitism. Me neither. She didn't like homophobia, sexism, racism, anti-Islamism, etc. Me neither.

Gotta problem with that? Bring it on.

Onofrio:

I don't know why you object to being Farnaz.I wouldn't mind at all and I wouldn't mind being you either.How come you don't want to be me? I hope it's nothing personal.

Ivri

FARNAZ:

COME BACK,PLEASE!

SCROLL DOWN AND READ MY POSTS ON BANGLADESH,PLEASE.I'D LIKE YOUR OPINION,PLEASE.

ALSO,DID YOU READ ROGER COHEN IN TODAY'S TIMES? IF SO, WHAT DID YOU THINK OF WHAT HE SAID ABOUT IRAN?

I'M GOING BY THE MONIKER OF ROD IF YOU WANT MY BODY STEWART, BUT YOU CAN JUST CALL ME ROD STEWART.

Ivri

Sorry for the multiple posts. Don't know how that happened.

Rod If You Want My Body Stewart

The Moderate et al:

I'm not Farnaz, but thanks for the compliment. I like to think she's what I mighta been with a few thousand more brain cells.Also, I was blogging here for at least a year before she started.I didn't always agree with her, but thought she was very smart and interesting.One time we had a long chat about India.

I hope she comes back and CCNL goes once and for all.He's an empty, niggling pain in the butt. She's a smart lady;he's a mosquito. I'm also not Onofrio. I'm actually Rod Stewart.

The Moderate et al:

I'm not Farnaz, but thanks for the compliment. I like to think she's what I mighta been with a few thousand more brain cells.Also, I was blogging here for at least a year before she started.I didn't always agree with her, but thought she was very smart and interesting.One time we had a long chat about India.

I hope she comes back and CCNL goes once and for all.He's an empty, niggling pain in the butt. She's a smart lady;he's a mosquito. I'm also not Onofrio. I'm actually Rod Stewart.

The Moderate et al:

I'm not Farnaz, but thanks for the compliment. I like to think she's what I mighta been with a few thousand more brain cells.Also, I was blogging here for at least a year before she started.I didn't always agree with her, but thought she was very smart and interesting.One time we had a long chat about India.

I hope she comes back and CCNL goes once and for all.He's an empty, niggling pain in the butt. She's a smart lady;he's a mosquito. I'm also not Onofrio. I'm actually Rod Stewart.

I have to admit the phrase “I am of two minds..” written by Miss Jacoby sounds kind of familiar, kinda like ”I’m hungry but I don’t want to eat”....or “I’m dying to talk to him but no way I’m gonna call him”...or “I bought it but I really didn’t like it”..

onofrio,

"Please stop this whatever-you-call-it re Farnaz.
She has left."

Has she?

"If you wish to take issue with MY posts on this thread, address them."

I did - you mentioned a 'conspiracy theory', and I disagreed.

Moderate, Arminius,

Please stop this whatever-you-call-it re Farnaz.
She has left.

If you wish to take issue with MY posts on this thread, address them.

Onofrio,

"Perhaps we are all simply avatars of Susan Jacoby, invented by her fertile imagination to boost the post-count on her threads ;)"

Why yes, we are. You didn't get the memo?

"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."

I like the Klingon version better:
"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, prepare to die."

At any rate, Timmy is right - it is not a conspiracy theory, it is a conclusion based on available evidence which anyone can check for themselves.

Timmy,

"This is not a conspiracy theory. This is about "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me"."

Precisely. The exact details about "who was on first" do not matter.

Onofrio,

"There is nothing moderate about your persistent insinuations that I am Farnaz."

Trite. But I don't recall stating unequivocally that you are "Farnaz", though I do allow the possibility. But it seems *very* likely that there is an author on these threads writing multiple characters including "Farnaz". Moreover, this author is a person of considerable literary talent, and of considerable malevolent tendency. The shameful pursuit to and harassment of Mary Cunningham on other blogs illustrated that conclusively. While your exact relationship to this author remains unclear, a lot of good people have been blasted by him or her, and you did help with that.

Ukba,

You, regarding Onofrio:
"I am sure he does not agree with Farnaz all the time, otherwise he would be a perfect clone"

Careful there, Ukba. Making such statements could have Moderate insinuating that you too are part of the Farnaz gestalt.

Perhaps we are all simply avatars of Susan Jacoby, invented by her fertile imagination to boost the post-count on her threads ;)

Peace, Susan J :)

Timmy,

You:
"And Onofrio should realize that and stop admonishing posters here for calling out yet another one of Farnaz's identities."

I briefly confronted Moderate for continuing to insinuate that I am Farnaz. I haven't been "admonishing" anyone about Farnaz' "identities". Have a look.

If we're talking *shoulds* perhaps you should not buy into this BS.

Nevertheless, I thank you for consistently admitting that Onofrio is actually Onforio. Credit where credit's due, Timmy2.

UKBA,

"Regarding Onofrio, I think he is entitled to his opinions"

Me too. I was just pointing out that his opinions never once differed from those of Farnaz and that because of this, he should be able to see, given Farnaz's exposure as a multiple personality poster, why some might suspect that he is Farnaz. We all got duped. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is about "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me".

YOU: "I am sure he does not agree with Farnaz all the time, otherwise he would be a perfect clone"

According to his posts, he does. And that's all we have to go on.

Like I said, I don't think that Onofrio is Farnaz.
But I do not put the blame for suspicions of such on the posters here. They have every right to be wary. Farnaz is to blame. And Onofrio should realize that and stop admonishing posters here for calling out yet another one of Farnaz's identities.

Ukba,

Thank you for being consistently reasonable about my identity and my posts. I appreciate it very much. And thank you also for being one of the few in the more recent stages of this thread who have contributed significantly to the topic, with your three detailed and thoughtful posts of March 1, 2009 12:22 PM.

A Tunisian perspective is not one that most of us are used to. It's refreshing, certes, and enlightening.

Salam

Shahidkamal asks:
"Is it not right to say that a girl has to be provided all her reasonable needs initially by her parents then by her husband?"

No. Not in enlightened countries.

And...

"In exchange to the fulfillment of the needs if the husband desires his wife to be a helping hand which would ease lives of both, then, will it be considered as patriarchal?"

Absolutely. What about her "desires"?

PSmithPHD,
I found your post horrifying. You say: "In our Church women and men are equal."

Yet you also say: "The fact that men hold the priesthood only..."
and
"the most important revelation to Joseph Smith on how to exercise power and influence...anyone doing so should use persuasion, patience, love, gentleness, meekness and kindness."

Are you really unable to see the disconnect?

In a religion where only men can hold the priesthood, and only men receive "revelations," there is no equality.

When a man is using "persuasion and patience" in order to "exercise power and influence," there is no equality.

And let's remember that Joseph Smith also had a revelation about the virtues of polygamy.

Nice try, but no woman who has managed to throw off the yoke of religious brainwashing and think for herself is even going to *think* about buying.

Counterww,

you said: "Even if they mistake a false god for the real one."

Which one of the 22000 religions decides who is the real one?

Timmy,
You said: “There is no question that Farnaz uses multiple identities and that Irvi is one of them. So was Yael1 and the Observers.”

I don’t think so, but that’s my opinion and I could be wrong. Regarding Onofrio, I think he is entitled to his opinions. I am sure he does not agree with Farnaz all the time, otherwise he would be a perfect clone; and if he does not want to share all his ideas with everyone, again that’s his business; that’s all.

Counterww,

"Religion, my poor atheist friend, is nothing close to tribalism"

We'll have to agree to disagree here.

YOU: "What you are asking for is to have people give up their identity for what YOU think society and humans should feel is important and will solve society's ills"

I do not consider someone's religion their identity. That is part of the brainwashing of religion that it is. I do not ask anyone to give up their identity.

YOU: "Islam is evident in not only Indonesia, but in the Middle East and in Africa, ACROSS culture and "tribes" So is Christianity"

Tribes spread, and conquer, that's what they do.

YOU: "No, its that many people- YOU included, take the bible of its entire context and intent(Looking backwards over both the NEW and OLD testaments) and become victims of those texts taken out of context"

I have read the Bible cover to cover several times. It is clearly meant to be taken quite literally. That moderates have chosen to take it allegorically does not change the original intention of the authors.

YOU: "I marvel at you really"

Thank you.

You call teaching your children the gospel "brain washing" and think we as a society need to stop somehow. How? By suspending first amendment rights?

No by talking about it and spreading the reality that Children are too young to have such beliefs placed into their developing brains as fact. I do not advocate any laws against religion. Just open dialogue about it.

YOU: "But you think what YOU believe, is the truth, and us religionists are in "delusion"

Yes because there is evidence for what I believe, but none for what you believe.

YOU: "There will always be educated, smart "religionists" that will curb your elitist claims and thwart you at every turn"

Always? I don't think so actually. But I am a hopeless optimist.

Timmy says:

"Religion is a form of tribalism. And I think that tribalism is the cause of virtually all of the problems between human groups. But there are other tribalisms. Religion is just one. Racism, ethnicism, and nationalism are the others. I think we need to let them all go and we will be able to make a far more peaceful world."

Hmm, this is really not true, at least the first part, and the others are somewhat true, but some if it goes against the multicultural thrust in our country.

Religion, my poor atheist friend, is nothing close to tribalism. Islam is spread across cultures, and so is Hinduism, and Christianity. What you are asking for is to have people give up their identity for what YOU think society and humans should feel is important and will solve society's ills. Really I have read your posts over and over. Islam is evident in not only Indonesia, but in the Middle East and in Africa, ACROSS culture and "tribes" So is Christianity.

As for your other comment-
"Fundamentalists are the victims of religious texts"- No, its that many people- YOU included, take the bible of its entire context and intent(Looking backwards over both the NEW and OLD testaments) and become victims of those texts taken out of context.It's when people take the two biggest commandments out-loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself, that is when they get into trouble.

I marvel at you really. You will never stop the truth of the gospel- the true one- which promotes peace, tranquility, love, joy, patience, kindness, goodness,gentleness, and self -control.

You call teaching your children the gospel "brain washing" and think we as a society need to stop somehow. How? By suspending first amendment rights? Taking children away from their parents? Outlawing private parochial and religious schools? Teaching them or "re-programming" them? Just how do you do that?

Another asinine comment:

"We have racism on the run. But we will not be able to break down the barriers between our countries and cultures until we get over our ancient primitive tribal superstitious beliefs."

It will never ever happen , because people , most people know that a creator exists, and want to know more about that creator. Even if they mistake a false god for the real one.

But you think what YOU believe, is the truth, and us religionists are in "delusion" ....

There will always be educated, smart "religionists" that will curb your elitist claims and thwart you at every turn.

When a writer suggests that "the Judeo-Christian view" is behind the (negative) patriarchal position and subsequent treatment of women, I am reminded once again of the importance of writers being more careful to distinguish between different Christian religious denominations. I read somewhere that there are about 22,000 such denominations. They are definitely not all the same.

The religion to which I belong has an elevated view of women. In what is probably the most important revelation to Joseph Smith on how to exercise power and influence, it is made abundantly clear that anyone doing so should use persuasion, patience, love, gentleness, meekness and kindness. I have seven daughters and would hope that all are always treated this way.

In our Church women and men are equal. It is unfortunate that some male members of our Church do not treat women correctly. We should do all we can to help such learn how to properly exercise their priesthood authority. The fact that men hold the priesthood only means that they are expected to take responsibility and serve in the Church, be kind and good husbands and fathers, respect and honor woman's most important role as mother, and in every respect treat women as equals, and full partners in family and social life.

No relationship in mortality is more important than the equal partnership of a man and a woman based on love and service to the other. Everyone in this world would be better if they had a companion and helpmeet that they could love and serve.

Phillip C. Smith, Ph.D.

UKBA,

There is no question that Farnaz uses multiple identities and that Irvi is one of them. So was Yael1 and the Observers.

It is not the fault of the posters here that they must be wary and suspect of this kind of dishonesty. Who wants to waste their time having a debate with 3 different people only to find out later that you were actually debating one person who was using multiple identities to make it seem as though they had several supporters of their view.

As for Onofrio, I'm pretty sure that he is not Farnaz but no one could blame anyone for wondering, given the lengths that Farnaz has shown that her demented mind will go to, and the fact that Onofrio defended and agreed with absolutely everything, and I mean absolutely everything, that Farnaz ever said. And continues to do so even for her new identities.

It is suspect that Onofrio, who seems to take everyone else to task for anything he sees as off base, has never once, and I mean never once, let me repeat that one more time, has never once, taken Farnaz to task for a single thing she ever said.

There are only two people to blame for suspicions that Farnaz might be Onofrio, and they are Farnaz, for being dishonest and using multiple identities who support each other with unwaivering loyalty, and Onofrio for never ever once taking Farnaz to task for her dishonest and offensive posting. Not once, through it all. All the while taking everyone else to task for any little transgression, but never Farnaz.

Do I think that Onofrio is Farnaz? No.
Do I think that he has only himself and Farnaz to blame for suspicions that this might be true? Yes.

All he had to do is just once, just once, say "hey Farnaz, you were a little out of line with that last comment about everybody being swamp things".

Sorry Onofrio but Farnaz made your bed for you, and you helped her tuck in the sheets. I still think you're real though.

Like I said, it's not our fault that we're all wary now. That'd be Farnaz's fault.

Please note IMO based on grammar and content, Onofrio is not Farnaz.

Farnaz however based on grammar and content, definitely was using Observer12, Observer31 and ivri5678 as aliases, a major violation of integrity.

There is no doubt in my mind about Farnaz being who she said she was. And I don’t find it a bit believable that she was taking different monikers to hide her identity. Accusing Onofrio of being Farnaz for instance is ridiculous. It just happened that he agreed with her about certain situations and therefore defended her position. That in itself does not mean that the two are one. And the same goes for other people as well who took up her positions.

Farnaz is a Jewish lady who was emotional about the subject of anti-Semitism. I my opinion she was so emotional about it that it clouded her judgment about people who happen to disagree with her but mean no harm to her or the Jewish people in general. So, please no more theories about fake identities.

I note that the present Farnaz conspiracy theorizing has been sparked off by a comment by CCNL. Up till that point the link between religion and cultural conflict was being robustly debated by several posters. I note also that Moderate has been happy to take up CCNL's ball and run with it. Now, according to Moderate's logic, that must make he and CCNL mere avatars of some diabolically creative single entity - a veritable thread-Geryon.

See, Moderate, it's too easy to play such BS games.

Moderate,

There is nothing moderate about your persistent insinuations that I am Farnaz. If you have a bone to pick with something I've posted on this thread, then address the post, rather than spread some paranoid ad hominem hunch you have about my identity.

themoderate,

"Poppycock."

Easy there sailor! Light sarcasm, not literal. I am very clear that it was not just about antisemitism, or antisemitism at all. The topic stirred up a whole pot of poop. People started stirring. Took things personal.

"Fallout" is still apparent. Evidenced in part by arminius looking around corners for Farnaz KallMe. A bit ago onofrio called himself a ghola, as he was suspected by some to be a clone. antichristian, antisemitic, antiislamic, antikindness. The pretties and niceties dropped into the Abyss, abitss.

I am just suggesting allowing space for change. As opposed to the good old tradition of holding a grudge for a good long time.

The beheading of the woman in Buffalo has its roots in Islamic culture. Islam is hideous. There is nothing that can be done with it. It should be destroyed.

Women often put themselves in these situations. I have many male and female friends, who respect each other for their humanity, for their minds. I have gotten tired of hearing about women who pick losers.

Why is it that many women is this country allow themselves to be dominated by men? Women are free. It seems that many women need a backbone. I have contempt for women who allow themselves to be dominated by men.

Is it not right to say that a girl has to be provided all her reasonable needs initially by her parents then by her husband? In exchange to the fulfillment of the needs if the husband desires his wife to be a helping hand which would ease lives of both, then, will it be considered as patriarchal?

Justillthen:

"The last antisemitic warfare phase still has fallout,..."

Poppycock.

As an observer here for a long time I saw:
Paranoia about it but little actual antisemitic behaviour of any kind.
Individuals in heated and personal exchanges.
The "antisemitism card" used when personal disagreements occurred.
A well meaning fellow make an apology to try to settle things down only to be abusively rebuffed.
Plenty of direct and unabashed anti Christian bigotry.

I saw no "antisemitic warfare."

"Had he understood Islam, he should have divorced her in a decent manner if there was no hope of reconciliation"

Ah I see. And understanding Islam is so easy isn't it.
Never before have there been any troubles caused by misunderstandings of the Koran or Islam have there.

Islam is easy to understand isn't it.
It's someone's own stupid fault if they take it the wrong way. Isn't it.

Who could possibly get it wrong. Everyone knows exactly what it means.

It is not ambiguous in any way.

Simple. Straight forward. Easily interpreted.

The book is not the problem. Stupid naturally violent humans are the problem.

Aasiya Zubair Hassan’s violent death has nothing to do with Islam. It is a murder committed by an individual. Islam should not be brought under discussion on this issue. We cannot blame Islam by saying what Muzzammil Hassan did was a patriarchal act permitted under Islam. He is a criminal from an Islamic point of view as well. Had he understood Islam, he should have divorced her in a decent manner if there was no hope of reconciliation.

In no passage(ayat) of the Holy Koran........"saith Allah": that it is acceptable to murder one's wife!!!!!!!!

Hi, Justillthen,

You are right, of course. If Farnaz, that troubled person, does resurface, then I will not go on the attack. Further, I am willing to forgive, since I would be false to what I believe if I did not.

Forgiveness is one thing, but trust is another. Farnaz shredded the trust I offered with brutal venom, and I don't think I could ever trust her again. Peace, no; ceasefire, yes. One thing that I have learned in a long life - trust is very rare, and very precious.

And if she goes on her jihad again, then all bets are off.

Hello Arminius,

The last antisemitic warfare phase still has fallout, but I would suggest forgiveness and leaving the possibility of transformation. Farnaz was dark, but that may have allowed her to see it, and so become more aware of what lurks within. We all benefit from introspection and reflection on what is true about us.

If I were her, I would come in under a different name too. She burned bridges. Since she is not recognizable here by a face, but just a name, (and more, writing style, etc.), then the ease of anonymity allows her, and us, to come in under different guise but hopefully as evolved posters...

Maybe. It is worth leaving the opening. She did have much of value to contribute before she got caught up in her Dark Kali identity. Not a bright idea, that one!

Hi, Moderate,

Well, if Onofrio is here, we can be sure that Farnaz is either watching or also here under another name or names. You are correct - this could be the 'nice' phase before the bigoted bombardment.

The worst part of this whole soap opera is I often don't know who to trust, especially new names. You, of course, I believe are real. So is CCNL, so is Timmy, and a few others. Farnaz has really screwed things up - but doubtless that was her/his intent all along.

I have been reading about honor killing and its ramification for women in some Muslim countries. I think it is a disease that should be rooted out; women must not be treated as scapegoats for the misogynistic attitudes of their male counterparts. Killing the ‘guilty’ female in order to defend the so called honor and cover the shame of the household males in the family is unacceptable. It is murder and should be treated as such no matter what the excuses men put up to justify their actions. The consequence of this behavior is so morally reprehensible that no excuse should be accepted be it religious or cultural.

I know some people might say that culture and religion are so intertwined that it is hard differentiate between the two: religion shapes culture and vice versa. While I agree with that argument to a certain degree I still have some reservation. Take the problem of constitutional racism in this country a generation ago; was it cultural or religious? Also the problem of sexual assaults against women; is it cultural or religious, or is it something else altogether? Is it sexual repression? Or is it a byproduct of the sexual revolution? Does the woman share the blame because of the way she dresses and acts, sadly a defense often raised by the perpetrators?

Regarding women issues in some Muslim societies, I think the shortcomings of Muslim societies toward women can be ameliorated through improving social status of women by: first, helping women help themselves; second, enacting appropriate laws to achieve gender equality; and third, changing people’s backward and archaic mentalities in regard to women issues.

Illiteracy is a major problem in countries where the status of women is secondary to that of men. Empowering women through education, job opportunities and funding is crucial for women to achieve self reliance and economic independence. Women then should be able to fight against abuses, social inequalities and to demand equal rights.

Religious teachings which are deemed to be contrary to women’s rights should be abandoned because women’s emancipation is not only the right thing to do but also paramount to any human development. After all, women count as half of the population and the mothers of future generation; marginalizing them can only be detrimental.

Polygamy should be abolished and the offenders should be prosecuted. Polygamy is legal in the Quran under strict and special circumstances; however, some people take advantage of the situation and use it to satisfy their sexual desires which is against the spirit of legalizing polygamy in the Quran in the first place.

I found an article in AWID website which stands for The Association for Women's Rights in Development; here are some excerpts from it:

“In Jordan, Syria, Egypt and most other Arab countries, a man who murders his female relative to defend family “honor” receives a reduced penalty — or may not be sent to prison at all. Jordanian feminists and the Hashemite Royal Family have tried to abolish the law, but conservative legislators refuse to change it.

In the Palestinian territories, despite the existence of a strong and vibrant women’s movement, rapists are not prosecuted, while victims are forced to marry their assailants to “protect” the family’s reputation.

In non-Arab Iran, women are stoned to death for adultery, while men can enter into legal “temporary marriages” if they want to have extra-marital sex.

Under the brutal but secular regime of Saddam Hussein, Iraqi women benefited from some of the most female-friendly policies in the Arab world. Now, under the new Shia-dominated government, Islamist militias threaten women who do not follow their conservative dress code — and assassinate female teachers for educating illiterate women.”

But the picture looks very different for women in the small North African country of Tunisia — which is proud of its Arab, Islamic and Mediterranean heritage and its commitment to the values of “moderation, tolerance, religious pluralism and equality for women.”

But what really sets Tunisia apart from other Arab countries and most majority-Muslim states are its policies on marriage, divorce, child support, abortion, honor crimes and domestic violence. After all, what does it matter if a woman can attend university,
own her own business and run for political office if she cannot choose her own husband and be free from violence perpetrated by her own family members?

Tunisia has had the most progressive policies on women in the Arab world ever since President Habib Bourguiba proclaimed the Code of Personal Status in August 1956, five months after declaring its independence from France.

The code abolished polygamy without exception and punished a man who married a second wife with a year in prison and a fine. It forbid husbands from unilaterally divorcing their wives and gave women more child custodial rights.

In 1993, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, who succeeded Bourguiba as president, amended the Code of Personal Status to give women more rights. This time an active women’s movement could take much of the credit for the changes.

A wife was no longer required to obey her husband, a special fund was established to support divorced mothers and Tunisian women could now transfer their nationality on to their children.

And Article 207 in the penal code reducing the penalty for honor crimes was abolished.

A man who murders his wife after catching her in an act of adultery used to be guilty of just a misdemeanor. Now, however, he faces life imprisonment for manslaughter. Compare this to the situation in Pakistan, where a brother who kills his sister can escape any punishment at all by “confessing” to his father, who then promptly “forgives” him.”

According to an article in the Library of Congress website: “Today, 42 percent of the labor force is female, and 10,000 Tunisian women head Tunisian companies. More than 40 percent of the country’s medical doctors are women; women also account for 27 percent of municipal councils, 15 percent of the Senate and more than half of university enrollments.”

Those are baby steps but they are crucial and fundamental nonetheless in combating the problems facing women in some Arab countries and should be applauded. Culture and social mindsets can be changed when there is a will to act. Personally, I have five nieces back in Tunisia; three of them are college graduates, and the other two are still in college; one of them is in med school. And I am really proud of them. I sure don’t want any of their future husbands to lay a hand on them in any way shape or form.

Onofrio,

I said: "Nonsense. The populations of both sides are deeply religious."

YOU: "But it does not NECESSARILY follow that their reasons for fighting are religious in nature or origin. Logical fallacy"

No I didn't say it meant that their stated reasons for fighting were religious in nature. I was commenting on whether or not religion was a factor. And of course it has to be when the two warring tribes are deeply religious.

ME: "Delusional deity believers all of them."

YOU: "An absolutising broadside based on prejudice only"

So they're not? I am wrong? Explain.

YOU: "Unquestionably? Who dares question then"

Anyone who wants to challenge my assertion that it is unquestionable. I'm not holding a gun here. I can't bite anyone. It wouldn't take much daring to counter my assertion with reasoned argument.

YOU: "Molded and fuelled? So even when those fighting the war do not cite religious grievances as casus belli, religion deep in the marrow has predisposed them to fight."

Religion in general, but particularly their religion, creates tribalism. tribalism causes the fighting.

YOU: "But this is circular. You have assumed a priori that religion is the cause of fighting. When fighting occurs, it's "Aha! Religion!", even in the face of evidence to the contrary"

Again, In the case of this war, I said religion was a factor, not "the cause". And there is no evidence to the contrary that it was a factor.

YOU: "You're favouring your own hard doctrinal line over a consideration of evidence"

Nah, you just had it wrong. I said "contributing factor" not "the cause". And once again, there is no evidence that it is not a contributing factor.

ME : "It is inescapable."

YOU: "Another absolute?"

Nothing wrong with absolutes. Here's another one. People should never own people.

Now. Do you have an actual counter argument for my assertion that it is inescapable?

YOU: "No one here denies religion is A FACTOR. But what you have done earlier is to state that religion is THE ONLY cultural catalyst for inter-cultural fear and loathing (which leads to wars, massacres, etc.)

If I concede that this one war, was fought over language,then we now have one example of another element of culture causing one war once. Conceded.

Any other examples? Aside from this one exception to my original assertion? Because I can stand by that assertion if there is just this one questionable exception to the rule.

YOU: "IVRI gave a current example, with details, that questions your absolutes. But you stick to them regardless"

Yes, Farnaz, oops, I mean Irvi, gave one questionable example showing one exception to my assertion. I'm just wondering if that's it, and I was almost right, except for this one questionable exception. I guess we'll soon see.

CCNL:

"Based on commentary on the general comment thread, ivri5678 is actually Farnaz, the lady atheist of Judaism and member of the JDL returning once more after promising never to return."

Odd to find myself in agreement with you, but you may well be on to something here. Farnofrio seems to be mediating the introduction of this new (fictional) character to the blog during the "appeal to conscience" phase. This sets the stage for another virulent bout of bigotry later. The only thing sure is that whoever the author of these characters is, he/she is a very capable creative writer.

Based on commentary on the general comment thread, ivri5678 is actually Farnaz, the lady atheist of Judaism and member of the JDL returning once more after promising never to return.

So we now have the following aliases, Farnaz aka Farnaz2 aka Observer12 aka Observer31, aka ivri5678 and aka yeal? What next??

Last month a Christian man in California shot and killed his wife and all of his children in the house. The reason given was the loss of job.This act should not be connected to the Christian religion.

Domestic voilence can happen in any society. Those societies where learning, education and awareness of social issues are neglected have the highest rate of such killings. Things like honor killings are prevalent in people with little or no education. The social environment and culture around that place do play the role but not the religion.Rather many such persons are non-religious. The drug abusers and alcholics are mostly non-religious and domestic voilence in prevalent in such homes.
No religion allows beheading a wife, including Islam.

ivri5768

Regarding Bangladesh independence War.. you should not ignore the role that India played by training and promoting and supporting the "MukhtiBahini"..

Regards

Timmy,

You to IVRI re Bangladesh:

"Nonsense. The populations of both sides are deeply religious."

But it does not NECESSARILY follow that their reasons for fighting are religious in nature or origin. Logical fallacy.

"Delusional deity believers all of them."

An absolutising broadside based on prejudice only.

"The war itself may not have been over doctrine, but the nature of the warriors is unquestionably molded by and fueled by religion."

Unquestionably? Who dares question, then. Molded and fuelled? So even when those fighting the war do not cite religious grievances as casus belli, religion deep in the marrow has predisposed them to fight. Thus saith Timmy. But this is circular. You have assumed a priori that religion is the cause of fighting. When fighting occurs, it's "Aha! Religion!", even in the face of evidence to the contrary. You're favouring your own hard doctrinal line over a consideration of evidence.


"It is inescapable."
Another absolute?

"Religion is a factor in any battle between religious peoples, even if they are the same religion, as they often are."

No one here denies religion is A FACTOR. But what you have done earlier is to state that religion is THE ONLY cultural catalyst for inter-cultural fear and loathing (which leads to wars, massacres, etc.) IVRI gave a current example, with details, that questions your absolutes. But you stick to them regardless.

That's rather doctrinaire of you, and unreasonable.

The Moderate,

"Want to chew on it a bit more?"

Sure. Shoot.

Hello Arminius,

YOU WROTE: "As far as Timmy goes, religion is his great monster hiding under his bed, responsible for all the evils in this world

This is simply not true, Arminius. There is no monster under my bed. That is an ad hominem attack in lieu of an argument on point. You should really try to stay away from this style of arguing, it's not good debate. It's not debate at all.

YOU CONTINUE: " and from that concept, linked with his insistence on blind faith in 'reason and logic', he derives most of his arguments.

More ad hominem attack. Please, Arminius, can you please stick to what I actually say and provide quotes to go along with these accusations so we can see if they are valid. Without referring to actual quotes of mine, these are just ad hominem attacks.

I like it when we are pleasant with one another Arminius, but it is difficult if you come out swinging like this with all of these unsubstantiated accusations.

If you are going to say that I am a certain way, please quote me being that way. If you are going to say what I believe, please quote me expressing such belief.

YOU WROTE: "He seems to think that if religion goes away, it will usher in a golden age of peace and prosperity"

No I don't. Quotes please.

YOU CONTINUE: "thus ignoring all cultural differences, the need for resources, the desire for wealth, and the urge for power - all of which are independent of religion, and are major sources of sorrow for mankind"

The need for resources is not a cultural difference. It is a common human need and problem. The desire for wealth is not a cultural difference, it is a common trait to humans in all cultures. Ditto for the urge for power. Not a cultural difference.

Major causes of sorrow? Yes.
Cultural differences? No

Coming together as one human race will solve these problems. Getting over our tribalism will solve these problems. Getting rid of racism and ethnicism, and nationalism will solve these problems.

Religion is a form of tribalism. And I think that tribalism is the cause of virtually all of the problems between human groups. But there are other tribalisms. Religion is just one. Racism, ethnicism, and nationalism are the others. I think we need to let them all go and we will be able to make a far more peaceful world.

Hi Arminius,

Do you think that Power is that cause of War that cannot be reduced further? I'm asking since I'm not sure what emphases in any list of the usual culprits would have the most explanatory power. Ethnic differences between the East and West Pakistanis, greed on the part of the Punjabi, the interference of India all contributed to the conflict. Its terrible legacy continues.

ivri5768,

Your posts on the Bangladesh War of Independence were very interesting and informative. I did some quick web research - I had no idea how horrendous that conflict was. You are correct that language played a major role, and that religion did not. And yes, the lust for power played the greatest part.

As far as Timmy goes, religion is his great monster hiding under his bed, responsible for all the evils in this world, and from that concept, linked with his insistence on blind faith in 'reason and logic', he derives most of his arguments. He seems to think that if religion goes away, it will usher in a golden age of peace and prosperity - thus ignoring all cultural differences, the need for resources, the desire for wealth, and the urge for power - all of which are independent of religion, and are major sources of sorrow for mankind.

Timmy2:

"The war itself may not have been over doctrine, but the nature of the warriors is unquestionably molded by and fueled by religion"

One may just as easily say the nature of hormones and lower level learning skills shaped the soldiers, disposing them to aggression and enabling them to pull triggers, unquestionably. Religion, itself, played no part in the War.

Timmy,

We were having a discussion on the theological implications of Steady State vs. Big Bang moment of creation. Also Multiverse versus observable Universe. It seems to me that we did not finish it. Want to chew on it a bit more?

Irvi,

"Religion had absolutely nothing to do with it, nothing at all. Nada. Zero"

Nonsense. The populations of both sides are deeply religious. Delusional deity believers all of them. The war itself may not have been over doctrine, but the nature of the warriors is unquestionably molded by and fueled by religion. It is inescapable. Religion is a factor in any battle between religious peoples, even if they are the same religion, as they often are.

Hi Bios,

I excuse you. I, myself, Einstein though I am, have been, inexcusably, guilty from time to time, or, to be more accurate, was guilty at one time that I recall, vaguely, in 1986. I think it was on a Friday in June, but I'm not certain.

Every thing is about power. The Punjabi, however, literally, prohibited the Bangladeshi from using their own language. That was the immediate cause of the War, though, of course, there were other factors as I mention below. One of them was NOT religion.

The War, which was hideous, had consequences. See below.

Before I start, please excuse my intellectual laxity, Einstein. But you are one persistent person Ivri, I give you that.

Wars are always about power, money & control. If you are trying to make a point about a linguistic war, please try harder. I don’t see it. Please explain.

More on Bangladesh:

Those who give a damn about their fellow humans might want to take a look at the work being done by Dr. Yunis, Nobelist, in Bangladesh. Also, at work is WorldVision, which doesn't attempt to convert, but does expose Muslims to Christianity. WorldVision has done a great deal of good in the region, and this is from one who is about as far as anyone can get from being a Christian apologist.

Nothing they have done,however, could not be done by secular, state-sponsored foreign entities, e.g., NGOs, carefully monitored and supervised, needless to say. Genuine, disinterested assistance from foreign governments, a rarity in history, would have access to far greater funding, could, therefore, do more, extend and expand the work of Yunis, etc.

For the record, I oppose organized relgion, not decent believers, with every bone in my body; however, equally, I oppose intellectual laxity. People and organizations that do good work do good work. That does seem to be the case with WorldVision in Bangladesh.

The Bangladesh War for Independence was particularly ugly given the number of Bangali women raped, placed conservatively at two hundred thousand, who, btw., were also tortured. Millions of Bangladeshi died. Many fled to India, which had incited the War. To pay for weapons Bangladesh agreed to buy weapons from India for twenty-five years. It continues to arm its military, making none of its neighbors happy, pleasing few of its starving citizens. Those who have what to eat cannot go about such daily business as attending classes given the unimaginable amount of crime. The PM, powerful, sane as PMs go can do little about the problem. What she can do she does. This "needle in a haystack" may one day be seen to have been match that burnt the whole thing down, all beginning with the War for Independence.

During that monstrous affair, the numbers of Bangladesh Muslims who fled to India added to that country's inability to control its ethnic strife. In the meantime the subsequent wedding between Bangladesh's corrupt agri-business, corrupt military and India intensifies the poverty and lawlessness in that nation. In the meantime, the Bangladesh Border Police have been doing peculiar things viz India, which is heating things up. The Bangladesh Army and Border Police are in a conflict over salaries, which almost lead to civil war a few days ago.

Muslim terrorists are now gaining strength in Bangladesh and making communion with Pakistanis of a similar persuasion.

The US and Great Britain supported Pakistan in the War for Independence, which brought down the president of Pakistan, ushered in Ali Bhutto, whom the Brits and US also manipulated, the US assisted in killing. Next came Zia, the Madrassahs, etc. Starving, lawless, Bangladesh would be a good place to watch for those in the US interested in staying alive. Terror won't come directly from there, but there is always indirection, a great deal of it.

Also, keep a close eye on China, good friend to all in the West. Watch them not only in Tibet and Darfur, but in Bangladesh and India.

There were several factors involved in the Bangladesh War of Independence, as I note below. Religion had absolutely nothing to do with it, nothing at all. Nada. Zero.

Among the several factors language figured prominently, intensely, unendingly. The Pakistanis (mainly Punjabi) prohibited the Bangla from using theirs.

"Power" is a factor in every war, indeed in every thing. Power is a factor in Diet Pepsi, reading, and crossword puzzles, for example.

"An Example of a "Linguistic" War: Language figured heavily (very heavily) in the Bangladesh War of Independence"

What an incredible stretch to find a needle in a haystack. This war was not over language. Not the root of it. It was about power and control. So is religion.

Very interesting and enriching article. As a Hindu, I can vouch that in no hinduism religious books viz. the Vedas, the Bagavat Gita, the Ramayan etc. no where is Sati mentioned. This unfortunate practice of the olden days came about when a widow threw herself on the pyre of her beloved. Perhaps, this is why women do not attend the cremation ceremony.
On the other hand, Hinduism pays great honour to the 'Mother'.
In my humble opinion, no religion propounds discrimination against woman especially the mother.
Best regards.

An Example of a "Linguistic" War: Language figured heavily (very heavily) in the Bangladesh War of Independence.

ON the RELIGION of the ROMA (ROMANI) PEOPLE:

The Roma adhere to the religions of the countries in which they live. They are Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Muslim, and Protestant, among the latter, some Evangelicals.

~500 million Muslim women with the exception of a lucky few like the PM of Bangladesh (the female PM of Pakistan was not so lucky) suffer 24/7 under the heels of ~500 million Muslim men. This is all done via the guidance of the "worst book ever written" aka the koran. Said book was generated by the hallucinations of one long dead Arab who supposedly got his instructions from a "pretty, wingie, talking, flying, fictional thingie" named Gabriel. It all makes one scream out "THE SIGNIFICANT STUPIDITY OF IT ALL!!!!

And a Muslim male with four wives, is he not guilty of raping the last three i.e. polygamy is simply legalized rape??? spousal abuse??

(from W.E. Elliots column)

1.....This week's "On Faith" questions hit me with a flurry of questions:
1.1.....Have any non-American Muslim leaders condemned the beheading?
1.2....."Quick" after the beheading, could anybody know whether, in the murderer's mind, religion had anything to do with his crime?
1.3.....Since beheading is a solid Muslim tradition & contemporary practice, how could any Muslim leader say that a particular beheading by a Muslim had "nothing to do with religion"?
1.4.....Since the beheader was religious, and of a religion that practices beheading, how - in light of this event - could anyone ask whether there is "a connection between religion and domestic violence"?

Onofrio,

YOU: "What about just talking differently?"

And the last war over language was?

YOU: "Mutual incomprehension between cultures may become a huge cause of friction. Even variation in accent can be a focus for hostility"

"May become" "Can be" blah blah blah. Got any examples of the linguistic wars?

YOU: "A culture may value martial spirit among its males, and encourage displays of conspicuous bravado and even violence against the *other*. More conflicts on the way for that culture!"

"A culture MAY value a martial spirit among it's males?"
Can you give us an example so we can clarify that this "valuing of martial spirit" did not come from a religious tradition?

YOU: "That a peasant farmer fears and loathes horse-riding nomads has everything to do with the conflicting interests of settled peasant culture vs mobile nomad culture"

lol. Yes this is a huge problem today. So much fighting over the nomads vs the peasant farmers. lol

YOU: "Would you contend that the Gypsies of Europe were generally feared and loathed ONLY because of religious differences?"

Not only. But partly. Perhaps even largely. And I am talking about present times, dude, come on.

http://www.lemondrop.com/2009/02/10/8-year-old-married-off-to-47-year-old-man/

What more is there to say?

I think the “I am of two minds” paragraph is part of the puzzle to understanding the link between religion and domestic violence.

“Mr. Hassan may just have been a violent man”. If we take this statement as true and he was a violent man then we could conceive that religion may have been an important factor in carrying out the beheading, like some sort of medium to unleash the fury. There’s a violent man, a religion that feeds strict codes, has clear cut limits and zero tolerance. A murderer in the making, due in part to religion.
We could also believe that in this case it was religion but in another case the medium could be something else.
So would the fact of it being religion this time imply that because religion is not the root of the problem it is less important in this event? (It’s “just” a means, not the cause).
Would a significant statistical tendency of the use of religion as an instrument make any difference in importance?

What if Mr. Hassan was not a violent man? How could religion be considered as part of the problem?
If he was not a violent man but he was a very religious man, then we could very well deduce that the pure fact of crossing over a well established limit in his religion made him react according to his belief. If this limit is crossed, then it is my duty to reply as expected by my religion. It is easy to see that the more extreme the belief, the easier it would be to react this way.
Additionally, religion as a club could be a strong incitation to violence and group delusion.

At the end of the day everyone agrees Mr. Hassan committed murder and should be sentenced accordingly. But the link between religion and domestic violence should be thoroughly examined, at least to help prevent further incidents. At best to show a real advance by cutting off from the mentioned grand American tradition of pretending that religion has only good effects on individuals and society.

Pamsm:

The "Crusaders" were primarily younger sons who, due to primogeniture would not inherit. They were a nuisance in any number of ways, and the Crusades were a way for them to make money. They were also a way for them to enrich Europe. Catholicism worked in the interest of ideology. Of course, the Crusaders honestly believed that it was their primary purpose, their goal to regain the Holy Land from the infidels, in the course of which they slaughtered all the Jews and Muslims they possibly could, doing God's work, as it were. Of course, during the first Crusade, they took note of the Jews living in Europe, killed, raped, plundered in the name of God, as well. Why not, after all? It only slowed them down for a few days. Once on the road to hell, I mean, the Holy Land, some kept diaries. Interesting and hair-raising stuff.

Christianity was necessary, but not sufficient for the Crusades, and the Crusades were neither the first nor the last great killfest during which this was the case.

I think religion had plenty to do with the Crusades. Those were highly religious times, and men thought that it was possible to buy one's way into heaven by donating to monastic orders, or providing land and funds for churches.

Crusaders went for God's glory, as well as their own, and to free the "Holy Land," specifically Jerusalem, from the "infidel."

It wasn't easy for them to raise the money necessary to go on crusade. The aforementioned Richard Coeur de Lion pretty nearly bankrupted England with his incessant wars and crusades - which seem to have mainly been to avoid the company of his wife.

While some few did become wealthy - and even obtained Middle Eastern kingships - most returned penniless, if they returned at all.

There are many ways around it when profiling is employed. Don't forget the pregnant Irish woman (Anne Marie Murphy) who almost carried 3.25 lbs. of Semtex aboard an El Al flight from London to Tel Aviv in 1986. Her Palestinian "fiance" was "sending her to meet his parents", and gave her a suitcase full of gifts for them.

Fortunately, security found the false bottom in the suitcase. Anne Marie's words after the discovery were "The b@st@rd tried to kill me!"

Somehow I doubt that the wedding ever took place.

Ethnic and cultural differences errupted in the Bangladesh War of Independence, not a particularly pretty war, as wars go. Religion was not at issue, not at all, as I posted below.

Timmy,

"I target religion as the principle CULTURAL catalyst of fear and loathing between cultures."

Yes I understood you the first time: of all the types of cultural difference, religion is the ONLY aspect that causes said fear and loathing. All else is just details of food and clothing.

Not true.

What about just talking differently?
Language is part of culture. Mutual incomprehension between cultures may become a huge cause of friction. Even variation in accent can be a focus for hostility.

What about values (not always *religious* in origin)?
A culture may value martial spirit among its males, and encourage displays of conspicuous bravado and even violence against the *other*. More conflicts on the way for that culture!

What about customary livelihood?
That a peasant farmer fears and loathes horse-riding nomads has everything to do with the conflicting interests of settled peasant culture vs mobile nomad culture and little to do with whether either party is Muslim, Christian, or shamanistic. A similar conflict has persisted with regard to the Roma people over the centuries. Would you contend that the Gypsies of Europe were generally feared and loathed ONLY because of religious differences? Nothing to do with nomad culture vs culture of sedentarised settlements?

Certainly religious difference can be A cultural catalyst for inter-cultural friction. But THE ONLY one (as you originally claimed), or even the PRINCIPAL one? That's still unjustified.

The Moderate:

Why is there so much suffering in this world when there is also so much wealth?

The Moderate:

The question is how we look back on ancient cultures and for what reasons. I think what's more important is how we look at contemporary civilizations, most particularly ours, that is, the one in which we live, to ask how civilized it is, how much we know of decisions affecting us, who controls what we know, to what ends, etc.

Ivri,

"My, my. Who not to hate? Radical racism, sexism, slavery, homophobia."

It is easy to look back on ancient cultures and see their mistakes, isn't it?

The Moderate:

"Sultans too, if the histories are to be believed."

Probably. Also, sheiks, pashas, and emperors.

Ivri,

"Always best to keep kings at a distance, IMO"

Sultans too, if the histories are to be believed.

Ivri,

"The "Crusaders" walked midthigh deep in the blood and bone of the conquered."

So they did. Yet they were not unlike their opponents of the day in that.

The Moderate:

"when the Crusaders conquered the Levant it was not, for the most part, an improvement for people living there"

I suppose those living there would have to agree. The "Crusaders" walked midthigh deep in the blood and bone of the conquered. Then, too, the slaughtered Jews of Europe who happened to be in the path of the Crusaders on their way to Holy Land rescue had surely seen better days. The adventure, did, however, find employment for younger sons who wouldn't inherit and lotsa dough for Christian Europe, not to say amusing pastimes for Richard the Lionhearted. (Always best to keep kings at a distance, IMO.)

Ivri,

"I'm with those who think the Crusades were fundamentally about wealth. Christianity figured in the bloody ventures, was necessary, but not sufficient."

The Crusades were also about a post dark ages Western European resurgence called the Carolingian Renaissance. Islam had forcefully expanded from the Arabian Peninsula through all North Africa, Spain, Southern Italy, Greece, Turkey. They were moving in on France and were stopped there. The Crusades were a counterattack that signified a shift in the balance of power showing that Europe was no longer a moribund target for conquest.

That said, the Crusades were a mess from military and cultural standpoints. The Children's Crusades being a particular low point. Islam was at that time much more advanced than Europe, so when the Crusaders conquered the Levant it was not, for the most part, an improvement for people living there.

And then of course we have those good ole pauline discourses on the ladies....My, my. Who not to hate? Radical racism, sexism, slavery, homophobia. NT all the way! Lookin' back, I can see it could of been worse. And it will be.

Universal hatreds declared in the Bible. Believe in me and you're saved, so long as you repent. What you did before is not my business.

Do all the good in the world and don't believe in Moi, and yer damned. Forever. Hate that generated hate that generated hate that generates...

Timmy:

The Moderate,

ME: ""I said that cultural differences that are not religion related, are nothing to fight over."

"Oil shortages are cultural differences?" Yes. Caused by competition among cultures including OPEC home countries, and corporate cultures corrupting political cultures.

"Food shortages are cultural differences?" Yes, in many cases they are caused buy cultural differences. Darfur, for example is an engineered food shortage to perpetrate ethnic cleansing of an area. There is actually plenty of food to go around in the world, but cultural divisions an animosities keep it out of the hands of some who desperately need it.

"Drug wars" Yes. Caused by criminal subcultures and prosecuted across national cultures.

"Trade wars that lead to shooting wars" Yes, caused by national cultures seeking economic dominance. (see food wars above)

"Organized crime" Yes. Organized crime syndicates are highly developed subcultures in larger societies, and they do differ from the surrounding cultures in ways that cause conflicts.

"Colonialism?" Yes. One culture (and or race) striving to subjugate others for self enrichment, and to impose its own cultural values on the colonies.

"Wars of conquest?" Yes, take Alexander the Great for example. He conquered the old Persian empire to impose Hellenic culture there as well as to enrich his native culture. There are endless examples besides that.

"Communism?" The very definition of cultural engineering seeking social change and presuming world dominance.

"Ethnic hatreds" Like the kind described in the Bible?

Yes, the biblical Hebrews were radical racists seeking to conquer other peoples' lands and control or kill the inhabitants. The human condition in its full shame and glory is there to see in the Bible.

Yes, the Christians of late antiquity engaged making a Christianity a state religion, and forcing conversions.

Yes, Moslems conducted wars of conquest for the purposes of forced conversions and economic gain.

But also like those prosecuted by Atheists, e.g: Mao, Pol Pot, Josef Stalin, et al.

But also like the racial hatred of Slaves, Jews, Gypsies, and blacks, refined and brought to a fever pitch by Hitler.

You see, my friend, my point is that while many cultural causes of war do include religion, many do not involve it. You might then legitimately ask if religious groups caused more or worse wars. But if you want to be scientific you then have to examine the nineteenth and twentieth centuries where there were functional Atheist societies as a basis for realistic comparisons.

timmy2 wrote:

"'I'm with Jed on this one, Timmy. It don't take an army, just a dirty dozen or so'

And they haven't employed this incredibly powerful tactic yet because ......?"

They have not employed this tactic because it wouldn't work, because airport security people are not fools. They check everyone, young, old, black or white. This tactic would only work if they did racial profiling and ignored people who do not fit the profile.

That's my whole point! Racial profiling is an open invitation to terrorists and criminals to evade security checks.

You seem to believe that all terrorists must necessarily look and act like the ones in movies. (Actually, there was a movie with a blond, blue-eyed Al-Quaida terrorist from the midwest . . .)

Along the same lines, years ago a pilot wrote a newspaper article complaining that he has to go through the check in process and surrender anything like a knife, but he said that makes no sense because once in the cockpit he has an axe. He missed the point. If we let pilots go through security without the same checks as anyone else, then a terrorist will dress up as a pilot with fake IDs, and carry a gun or bomb through security.

Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, is "white," not blond, but "white," and, then, too, there is always hair dye, of the type used a few years ago by a suicide bomber in Israel. And, as has been remarked, there are blond Muslims, both in the Middle East and in Europe. That they could be recurited by Al Quaeda is not outside the realm of possibility so long as blondness is not a defense against indoctrination.

Onofrio,

"In any case, Timmy's determination to target religious difference as THE PRINCIPAL catalyst of fear and loathing between cultures remains unjustified"

I target religion as the principle CULTURAL catalyst of fear and loathing between cultures.

Like "the Moderate", the lists you provide are not CULTURAL DIFFERENCES. They are just other reasons to fight but they are not cultural differences.

I have always acknowledged nationalism and racism (ethnicism) as other reasons for conflict. Duh. I have also shown how religion is tied into both of these. They all feed each other like a perpetual motion machine. They are all forms of tribalism. I am for the eventual natural disposal of all three. I advocate a drive towards this goal on all fronts starting yesterday.

Onofrio,

"I'm with Jed on this one, Timmy. It don't take an army, just a dirty dozen or so"

And they haven't employed this incredibly powerful tactic yet because ......?

Jed,

YOU WROTE: "There are 1.4 billion Muslims in the world, including millions of Caucasians, people from India and others who are not Arabs and do not fit the profile.

Are they willing to kill and die in the name of Allah?
It doesn't seem so since none have ever been involved in a suicide attack.

YOU: "In this great mass of people they could find a few who do not fit any profile"

And they haven't thought to use bond haired blue eyed suicide bombers yet because............?

YOU: "they might find an elderly black female who can fake being in a wheelchair"

They might? And they haven't done this yet because.......?

YOU: "I have not seen any drug mules that I am aware of, but I have met police department undercover detectives"

Drug mules and undercover detectives do not have to kill themselves. They do not have to be convinced to die for Allah. Drug mules and undercover detectives are not in any way analogous to suicide bombers.

YOU: "It does not take an army. Two or three would be enough"

For one small attack maybe. But not for any sustainable campaign. And they would have to get by all of the other security and screening measures (most of them) which make no use of profiling.

ME: "I don't think it's possible, Jed."

YOU: Then you lack imagination and you are not acquainted with many Muslims.

No. You lack evidence and logic for your claim that Al-Queda can find no shortage of blond haired blue eyed plane hijackers for their suicide missions.

YOU: "I have met deeply anti-Israel fanatical Muslims who are as Caucasian as they come. I doubt any of them would go on a suicide mission"

Stop right there. You just made my point. Whether or not they would cheer afterwards is irrelevant. The question is would they hijack a plane on a suicide mission? And could you find enough of them to thwart any profiling system, and still get by all of the other security measures? I just don't see it happening.

I am blond haired and blue eyed, and I have to take my shoes off at the airport like everyone else. I don't get to take liquids on the plane either, and my luggage is put through the same scanners, and I walk through the same metal detector, and get the same wanding when it beeps. And security officials and experts eyeball me for any suspicious activity or mannerisms when I am in the security line. It's not like their letting everyone else just walk on through and only screening arabs.

Onofrio:

"In any case, Timmy's determination to target religious difference as THE PRINCIPAL catalyst of fear and loathing between cultures remains unjustified."

I think isolating religion from economically based "tribal" motives for conflict would be a difficult enterprise. "Tribal" would include nationalism, "ethnicisim," etc. There are, of course, cultural behaviors (arrogance, a sense of superiority, etc.) that alienate large groups of people from particular nations, but do not, in themselves, cause war.

IVRI5768,

"Onofrio:

You mention the Crusades. I'm with those who think the Crusades were fundamentally about wealth. Christianity figured in the bloody ventures, was necessary, but not sufficient.

February 27, 2009 7:59 PM"

Fair comment, Ivri. That would place the Crusades in the second of the lists I supplied to Timmy, whereby religion was a secondary conflictual catalyst, or less.

The first list was of conflicts where religion consituted "a significant part of the fear-and-suspicion quotient", which I believe could concur with your Crusades estimate: "Christianity figured in the bloody ventures, was necessary, but not sufficient."

In any case, Timmy's determination to target religious difference as THE PRINCIPAL catalyst of fear and loathing between cultures remains unjustified.

On culture-related wars that don't involve religion: The Bangladesh Liberation War is the one that comes most readily to mind.

Timmy,

You to JedRothwell:
"I love to see Al-Queda try to find an army of blond haired blue eyed suicide bombers to cary out a campaign of global terror in the name of Allah.

I don't think it's possible, Jed. Do you have anything to back up this claim that "Al-Qaeda can find any number of such (blond haired blue eyed ) people"?"

I'm with Jed on this one, Timmy. It don't take an army, just a dirty dozen or so.

When I was travelling in Syria ten years ago, I saw plenty of folk with features that would easily pass for Anglo-Celtic. I did not see blond hair, but there were pink-white skins, blue or green eyes, and some redheads with all of the above. I met a Muslim Circassian lady who looked totally "whitebread" - bone-structure-wise, complexion-wise - with blue-grey eyes and brownish hair highlighted with blonde streaks.

Apart from this there are Western Muslim converts who get attracted to the extreme Islamist cause. Their numbers are growing. A documentary shown here in the Fundament last year featured a couple of typical Anglo-Celtic women who had converted to radical Islam, and wore the full burqa. The ideology they expressed was alarmingly militant, and their sense of grievance was extreme. Of those here who have been in the courts due to alleged links to Islamist terror, three have been white Anglo male converts.

DITLD:

I enjoy your posts. Should you find yourself beset in future by hypcritical trolls questioning the connections btw. religion and madness, you may reference Psych 101, where students have been taught for decades that relgion and sex are recurrent morifs in psychoses. Suggest you direct a hypocritical blogger whose "empirical" defenses of his NTsm are the stuff of which comedy is made to register for said course. If no college will take him, he can try skimming through any textbook on abnormal psychology written in the last fifty years.

Onofrio:

You mention the Crusades. I'm with those who think the Crusades were fundamentally about wealth. Christianity figured in the bloody ventures, was necessary, but not sufficient.

JedRothwell1:

Since there are, of course, blond blue-eyed Muslim extremists, it would not be far-fetched to think Al Quaeda or some other terrorist group incapapable of recruiting them. Stereotyping has always been stupid, as you know, but given the vast migrations of people, the diversity all around us, it has, if possible, gotten "stupider."
That won't stop it, however, among belivers, agnostics, atheists, and whatever else there might be out there.

timmy2 wrote:

". . . then obviously the next Al-Qaeda terrorist will be a blond, blue-eyed fanatic. Al-Qaeda can find any number of such people."

Seriously? They can? I don't buy it. Got any back-up evidence for this claim?"

There are 1.4 billion Muslims in the world, including millions of Caucasians, people from India and others who are not Arabs and do not fit the profile. Millions of people are sympathetic to Al-Qaeda. The name "Osama" became very popular after 9/11. In this great mass of people they could find a few who do not fit any profile. In Iraq they have been using young women, for example. Even if they do not find a blue-eyed Caucasian male, they might find an elderly black female who can fake being in a wheelchair.

I have not seen any drug mules that I am aware of, but I have met police department undercover detectives. They showed me their badges and informed me who they were. You would NEVER would have guessed their occupations. (That's the whole point.)

"I love to see Al-Queda try to find an army of blond haired blue eyed suicide bombers to cary out a campaign of global terror in the name of Allah."

It does not take an army. Two or three would be enough. It takes somewhat more people in support roles, behind the scenes, but it would not matter whether they fit the profile or not.

"I don't think it's possible, Jed."

Then you lack imagination and you are not acquainted with many Muslims. I have met deeply anti-Israel fanatical Muslims who are as Caucasian as they come. I doubt any of them would go on a suicide mission but they say they would be delighted if Tel Aviv is blown off the map with a nuclear bomb. It would not be difficult to recruit such people with the Internet.

I expect there are a lot more Al-Qaeda fanatics who look the part, just as there are plenty of KKK lunatics from Central Casting, who drive trucks with Confederate flags and gun racks. But if we relax our guard and give people who don't look the part a free pass, you can bet that Al-Qaeda will find out and use that fact to attack us. They have a talent for finding weaknesses in the system.

You can't depend on outward appearances in any case. A black reporter was was driving through Mississippi last year -- I think it was -- and a big, aggressive looking white guy driving a pickup truck with gun rack and guns in back practically drove him off the road. As the truck went by, the reporter noticed an Obama sticker on the back window.

Jedrothwell,

YOU SAID: "If it becomes generally known that airport personnel are not checking on blond, blue-eyed people, then obviously the next Al-Qaeda terrorist will be a blond, blue-eyed fanatic. Al-Qaeda can find any number of such people."

Seriously? They can? I don't buy it. Got any back-up evidence for this claim?

I love to see Al-Queda try to find an army of blond haired blue eyed suicide bombers to cary out a campaign of global terror in the name of Allah.

I don't think it's possible, Jed. Do you have anything to back up this claim that "Al-Qaeda can find any number of such (blond haired blue eyed ) people"?

rubytues63 wrote:

"We are told by numerous groups (such as NOW and the NAACP), how dangerous and unfair stereotypes can be. Airport screeners are not supposed to focus any more attention on people who appear to be from the Middle East than they are to someone who appears to be from Scandinavia, despite the fact that there have been remarkably few blond haired, blue eyed individuals intent on crashing a jet. . . ."

You need to stop and think for a moment. If it becomes generally known that airport personnel are not checking on blond, blue-eyed people, then obviously the next Al-Qaeda terrorist will be a blond, blue-eyed fanatic. Al-Qaeda can find any number of such people. Ditto old ladies in wheelchairs, etc.

Drug dealers hiring mules and the cops who try to stop them figured this out long ago. As soon as you turn a blind eye to a particular racial or age profile, the bad guys recruit people from that profile.

DITLD writes:

"And I had another experience with a friend who read aloud continuously from the Bible, and would never shut up"

So have I: CCNL, though not a friend, not an acquaintance (praise be)

To say that institutionalized religions are partriarchal is not to make a great revelation unto mankind, i.e., what else is new?

As for DITLD and CCNL: DITLD is a natural philosopher, a raisoneur. CCNL is an empiricist, who has prostituted himself in his desperate need to maintain his NTsm. That, said, he would be doing the known world the greatest service if he would stop blogging and live out his days in quiet delusion, until beckoned by NT upward to NT heaven.

The Moderate,

ME: ""I said that cultural differences that are not religion related, are nothing to fight over."

YOU: "Oil shortages"

Oil shortages are cultural differences?

YOU: "Food shortages"

Food shortages are cultural differences?

YOU: "Drug wars"

Drug wars are cultural differences?

YOU: "Trade wars that lead to shooting wars"

Cultural differences?

YOU: "Organized crime"

Cultural differences?

YOU: "Colonialism?"

Cultural differences?

YOU: "Wars of conquest?"

Cultural differences?

YOU: "Communism?"

Cultural differences?

YOU: "Ethnic hatreds"

Like the kind described in the Bible?
Or the kind caused by religious differences between those ethnicities?

You: "That's barely even a decent start"

I wouldn't call 0 for 10 a decent start.

Try looking up the word "culture" and then start over.

The Moderate says:
"Was this supported in history? Of course not. The historical record shows that the Atheist societies have been far more violent than religious ones, at least when you measure it in deaths per year."

Oh, puh-leese! Can't we put this very tired and completely inaccurate old argument to rest?

The "atheist societies" (and, one more time, "atheist" is not capitalized) that you refer to, were nothing of the sort. They were societies controlled by ideologically driven despots who happened to want to be rid of religion because it was a rival for their power. And the people they lorded it over were not, in the main, atheists themselves.

If you want to look at true atheist societies, where the majority of the people have grown out of religion, You need look no farther than the countries of Scandinavia - and, indeed, most of northern Europe. Crime rates are low, reported happiness is high.

Timmy,

"I said that cultural differences that are not religion related, are nothing to fight over."

Let me count the reasons:

Communism?
Oil shortages?
Food shortages?
Drug wars?
Trade wars that lead to shooting wars?
Organized crime?
Ethnic hatreds?
Colonialism?
Wars of conquest?

That's barely even a decent start.

Daniel:

"I do not unerstand why CCNL is picking on me,..."

Its just what he does. There is no reason for it. So don't take it personally.

I think he's actually frustrated because he wants to be a sugar cube in his next life and he can't wait. :^)

Dear Susan,

"Drawing a line between religion and culture is generally an attempt to let religion off the hook for any bad deeds it inspires."

You make a living selling anti religious bigotry, and you are quite immune to the effects of reason and logic. Early on, we had a lengthy discussion on these blogs about your, then widely asserted, ridiculous Susy-gism that goes like:

IF religion has inspired wars and atrocities;
THEN eliminating religion would eliminate wars and atrocities.

Was this supported in history? Of course not. The historical record shows that the Atheist societies have been far more violent than religious ones, at least when you measure it in deaths per year.

So the question at hand for you is: Are the kinds of bad deeds we are discussing eliminated when religion is eliminated? Of course not. And if not, we must consider other motivations like broader cultural influences, individual insanity (e.g. sadism), or other influences.

Then again, you never have been much for research, facts, logic, or reason. For example did you check up on First Degree Murder in New York? After all, you did write the following below:

"Second-degree homicide is the state's highest homicide charge. It means what first-degree homicide does in other states: premeditated murder..."

Is that true? If not, why don't you admit your error? I have called to account for occasional research errors and admitted my mistakes on these blogs. I have never seen you admit to any one of your factual and logical errors.

Daniel,

I noticed CCNL starting to have a go at you. It's just BS, Daniel. Best to ignore. Anyone with any sense that knows you don't need a PhD and a litany of statistics to tread these boards.

I do not unerstand why CCNL is picking on me, for not referencing all the origins of my thoughts, nor giving my credentials for speaking as I do. I don't know where my thoughts or ideas come from, specifically, so I couldn't really reference anything. Some people have "creative" thoughts that do not come from anywhere in particular, but are a complex of many contingent experiences, too many to name, or remember, one by one.

I did not mean to say that religion is a form of mental illness. What I said is that alot of "crazy people end up crazy over religion." I say it that way, because I do not know how this phenomenon works. I know many religious people who do not seem crazy.

And I did not mean to imply that reading the Bible is what makes a person crazy. I was merely pointing out my own personal experience with someone who spent every waking moment "memorizing" the Bible, who would not do the laundry, nor the house work, nor fix meals, nor take showers, but only spent his time "memorizing" the Bible.

And I had another experience with a friend who read aloud continuously from the Bible, and would never shut up. I only mention these cases because they are the ones I know of. I assume that it works the same way with Islam and with all religions.

I consider myself to be a spiritual, even a religious, person. Yet, I feel very clear in my mind about "things" and do not feel any kind of cluttered confusion over matters of belief and religion.

Yet, in my wildest, wildest dreams, I cannot imagine how anyone could behead his wife. It is beyound my capacity to comprehend. I can only infer that this man is an extremely dangerous psychopath, who might do anything, while seeking to justify it with religious reasons.

I think that religions such as Christianity or Islam do have some responsiblity in enabling such people to take cover and hide behind religious justifications for their actions. It is too late, after the wicked deeds are done, to say, that is not really our religion; that was just a crazy person.

Onofrio,

"All these fires fed ONLY by religious differences? It just ain't so"

Didn't say that it was. That was your list not mine.

I didn't say that all war was caused by religious differences, I said that cultural differences that are not religion related, are nothing to fight over. Geographical deterministic elements such as diet, clothing and skin color are nothing to fight over. What's left that is not religious based?

Can you give me some examples of cultural differences between human groups that are not religious based, or things like simple food, clothing, skin color and hair texture?

BTW I am also against racism and nationalism, which, like religion, are all forms of tribalism. They feed each other like a perpetual motion machine. I think that we need to hurry our way towards and end to all three. I think that religion needs to go first. This is all big picture. Generations and generations.

We will all be one race one day. In fact we are now. Our primitive asses just don't know it yet. But one day in the future it will be unmistakable. And there will be no need for separate governments or even cultures. one human race and culture and planet. Who could not think that that will be a more peaceful world.

We have racism on the run. But we will not be able to break down the barriers between our countries and cultures until we get over our ancient primitive tribal superstitious beliefs.

Timmy,

You:
"Religion is not only an integral component of most cultures, it is the only part that makes other cultures suspicious and fearful of other cultures."

Seriously Timmy, do you really think religion is the ONLY source of suspicion and loathing between different cultures? Seriously?

What's the clearest indication that two cultures significantly suspect and fear each other? They start fighting, right? They make war.

Let's consider briefly some of history's major wars.

In some cases religion has been a significant part of the fear-and-suspicion quotient:

Byzantines vs Arabs

Crusades

Elizabethan England vs Philip's Spain

Thirty Years War

In other major cases religion has been at most a secondary catalyst, or even of negligible conflictual effect:

Athens vs Sparta

Rome vs Carthage

The Mongols vs everyone else

North vs South in the US Civil War

The World Wars

Vietnam

We can also add genocides and massacres to the list for consideration:

Rwanda - plenty of fear and loathing between Tutsi and Hutu...but religiously motivated?

The Shoah - extreme notions of racial purity fuelled that one.

White settler-culture vs Native Americans - greed for territory. Among the native tribes, adopting the invader's Christianity - when it occurred - did not stop dispossession. I think race may have been a factor, no?

All these fires fed ONLY by religious differences? It just ain't so.

Such blanket absolutism does your cause no favours, Timmy.

Disagreeing with Susan Jacoby:

Voices of reason are based on statistical, valid data/proven events as observed and reviewed by educated minds. Dan in the Den is a generalist never providing proof with statistical data/events nor proof of his educational degrees in the subjects he is commenting on nor giving references to the educated minds he borrowed his ideas from.

DANIELINTHELIONSDEN,

My 2 cents on your recent exchange with CCNL regarding madness and the bible.

While many people throw the blame at fundamentalism I often marvel at the backwardness of this thinking. I'm certain these people are all fundamentalists when it comes to racism and slavery. I certainly am. No problem with fundamentalism there.

The problem is not having fundamental beliefs it is having delusional fundamental beliefs. It is the religious texts themselves that are the problem.

Deuteronomy 25:
If men get into a fight with one another, and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and seizing his genitals, you shall cut off her hand; show no pity.

Ex 35:2
For six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy sabbath of solemn rest to the Lord; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.

Two very minor examples from a mountain like them, in a religious text that even the most moderate of Christians pray over every day. These words, and a mountain of others like them or worse, are in the book they make us put our hand on when we swear to tell the truth in a court of law. A man can not get elected president of the United States unless he prays on this book. With this overwhelming societal endorsement of this book, and 80% of American children being told that God is real before they are even old enough to talk or think for themselves, is it any wonder that even the slightest hint of mental illness would make someone completely susceptible to being corrupted into believing that killing for God was duty?

I've said this before and I'm going to say it again (in caps even) because it is an important point that many religious apologists get backwards when they say that it's not the religion, it's the fundamentalists who twist the religion into something bad.

RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISTS ARE VICTIMS OF RELIGIOUS TEXTS, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

Moreover, these religious texts are diabolically crafted explicitly for the purpose of brainwashing the weak and the ignorant, and the spiritual.

Isaiah 40:8

The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of our God will stand for ever.

Susan Jacoby,

"Religion is an integral component of most cultures, and in a culture in which one religion dominates and suppresses all others, religion and culture--like church and state--are fused. Drawing a line between religion and culture is generally an attempt to let religion off the hook for any bad deeds it inspires"

Hear hear.

Religion is not only an integral component of most cultures, it is the only part that makes other cultures suspicious and fearful of other cultures. It's not the hummus we're afraid of. When westerners living in America see a family from India or Lebanon moving into their neighborhood wearing traditional clothing, it is not the clothing style that makes them have a visceral reaction of suspicion and fear, it is the religious meaning behind those clothes that makes us suspicious and judgmental, and puts up a tribal barrier.

Beyond religion related issues, culture is nothing more than food and clothing and other geographical determinism developments that are in no way causal to human conflict.

Susan Jacoby

I'm highly amused at the idea that googling religion + madness will provide either a definitive, or a better educated, answer to the question of whether religion can be a form of mental illness. Daniel In The Lion's Den, always a voice of reason, is undoubtedly right, given the ritualistic nature of this killing, that this particular murder was the result of a delusion organized around religion and religious culture.
(This doesn't, in my view, make the killer any less culpable.)

I don't, by the way, accept the separation between culture and religion that some of you are trying to make. Religion is an integral component of most cultures, and in a culture in which one religion dominates and suppresses all others, religion and culture--like church and state--are fused. Drawing a line between religion and culture is generally an attempt to let religion off the hook for any bad deeds it inspires. Indeed, killing in the name of religious beliefs has long been sanctioned in many cultures. The Buffalo beheader was, I suspect, a man caught between two cultures in which religion occupies quite different roles.

Dan in the Den,

Your limited observations and experiences make your unsubstantiated, general statements void of any meaning.

CCNL

I have provided another link, below. I am giving my own opinions based on my observations. These are un-google-able. If you are interested in this subject, and want to see for yourself, then you should do your own googling. It is easy. If you don't care, then don't.

I know from my own pesonal experience of people who spend every spare moment "memorizing" the Bible, or reading the Bible aloud to anyone who will listen. Being religious does not mean that a person is crazy. But there are many, many, many, many crazy people who have gone crazy over religion. Just ask any Pastor, a large of his job description is dealing with the hyper-religious mentally ill.

In the case of the man who beheaded his wife, it is my opinion that he suffers from a severe mental illness in which he suffers from hyper-religious confusion over Islam.

I suppose that this will make alot of religious people angry. I am sorry, but I do not know how to point out this fact in a more polite way.

http://www.find-health-articles.com/rec_pub_17464638-the-interface-religion-psychosis.htm

Moderate,

"My friend, I understand your outrage. I share it. I just think the that there were other non religious risk factors present"

So do I.
But the question was not "were there other factors besides religion present in this case?"

The question is did religion play a role in this case, and does it play a role in other domestic abuse cases. I think that in this case the answer is obvious. Yes it did. Were there other factors? No doubt. But was religion a major player in this beheading? I think that the ritualistic nature of this murder makes that question a no brainer.

Dan in the Den,

Your use of the general words "significant element" and "much" are not supported by your referenced excerpt. Your arguments will not "fly" until you can back them up with statistics and references supporting said statistics. Please pre-"google" your arguments in the future before writing anymore general, unsupported statements.

CCNL

My observations regarding religion and mental illness are obvious. You can google the subject if you like. I did a quick google and got this link:

http://www.paulyonline.brill.nl/public/psychopathology.html

Folowing is an excerpt from it, which makes sense to me:

"Piety, religious belief, and religious activity can, in certain circumstances, take on diseased characteristics: psychic illnesses can be caused by religion, or determined in their content by religion. The basis for this phenomenon lies in the fact that, from the age of childhood to that of adult, religious development is part of psychosocial development. Developing faith is founded in a primitive trust that is, in the very first nurturing relationship between child and principal nurturer. Religion is one of the transitional phenomena in the potential space between mother and child."

Susan:

"We don't have a charge of first-degree homicide,..."

I read that First Degree Murder is a charge in NY that is reserved to cop killers, and torture murder cases. So "ordinary" spousal murders are charged as Second Degree Murder. Did you screw up your research again?

Timmy,

"We're not talking about a generic murder here. We're talking about a beheading. A BEHEADING! Have you ever heard of a non muslim in modern times beheading his wife over an embarrassment?"

My friend, I understand your outrage. I share it. I just think the that there were other non religious risk factors present. This guy was under a restraining order. Those are hard to get, so I am guessing that there were other manifestations of violence that needed to be addressed. I think this guy should have been committed for involuntary treatment for criminal insanity.

As to horrendous crimes against spouses including most gruesome mutilations, yes, if you can think of it it has been done before. We have a major and sicking problem with violence against women in this country and across the world. And basically, religions are made up of people, and people bring their cultural backgrounds in the door when they enter the church or the mosque.

Generally, thought there are a set of cultures in South Asia where terrorism against women is embedded the fabric of society. I have heard of women getting burned alive in India for leaving their husbands, women getting gang raped for going out without a male guardian in Saudi Arabia, and women have been killed for teaching school in Afghanistan.

I am not sure this sickening behavior is strictly part of Islam, though. It seems to be part an parcel of underdeveloped undereducated cultures that missed the twentieth century entirely. Religions always overlay a basic cultural structure and it is hard to tell sometimes what is from the underlying culture and what is from religion. The Islamic criminal terrorists today remind me of the KKK in the nineteenth century postbellum South. Many of those racial terrorists were nominally "Christian", but no reasonable Christians of today would condone what they did. Many of their victims were Christian also. We have, as a culture, in both secular and religious aspects, have moved on from this barbaric behavior now. Clearly it is Islam's turn to clean up its act.

Dan in the Den,

You noted:

"The burden of the clergy in all reiligions is how to deal with this signifigant element of "believers" who suffer from religious mania. The police everywhere must deal with religious maniacs. Much of psychiatric care is devoted to people who have gone mad over religion.

Mental illness is what motivates alot of religious activity; that is a fact. I think that this "honor killing" is a perfect example of that. In this sense, it is Islam that enables this sort of behaviour, even if, technically, it is not a true Islamic practice."

You might be correct but such statements should be backed by referenced statistics.

All religious people are not crazy. But, let us all face the elephant in the room, that the subject of religion does often attract people who are mentally unstable, neurotic, disordered, even paranoid, even psychotic, even psychopathic. The more Fundamentalist the religion, the more difficulty there is with this problem.

That is just a plain fact. and is common knowledge.

The burden of the clergy in all reiligions is how to deal with this signifigant element of "believers" who suffer from religious mania. The police everywhere must deal with religious maniacs. Much of psychiatric care is devoted to people who have gone mad over religion.

Just because a person can quote from the Bible or the Koran does not mean they are good and spiritual. Just because a person dutifully participates in a prescribed religious ritual does not undo the fact of profound menal disturbance that such practices often indicates.

Mental illness is what motivates alot of religious activity; that is a fact. I think that this "honor killing" is a perfect example of that. In this sense, it is Islam that enables this sort of behaviour, even if, technically, it is not a true Islamic practice.

Susan Jacoby

Kerryberger--

I can answer your question about second-degree homicide. I just realized this must be confusing to people outside New York State. Second-degree homicide is the state's highest homicide charge. It means what first-degree homicide does in other states: premeditated murder. We don't have a charge of first-degree homicide, which most state (perhaps all others) do. Don't ask me why. In other words, it's the highest crime any murderer can be charged with and carries the penalties that first-degree homicide does elsewhere. (That's why they're always talking about second-degree homicide on "Law and Order." We do have a first-degree manslaughter charge, but that, of course, is a lower charge than murder.

Almost 500 million Muslim women save a few lucky ones like PM Benazir Bhutto, who sadly was assassinated by a follower of the koran, live under the boots of Ismalic males based on the "word" of one "pretty, wingie, talking, fictional thingie named Gabriel. Again, one must scream, "THE SIGNIFICANT STUPIDITY OF IT ALL!!!!"

UKBA,

"I don’t know why any crime a Muslim commits is always linked back to Islam"

It's not. Bank robbery, mugging, imbzelement, grand theft auto, speeding, etc, none of these crimes committed by a muslim woulod be linked to Islam. But we are talking about A BEHEADING! one more time. A BEHEADING! By an Islamist.

Considering religion as a possible factor is not racism. It's not a stretch. It's a no brainer.

Onofrio asks:
"Is domestic violence statistically less prevalent among the non-religious?"

Probably not, but the willingness of women to put up with it is certainly is certainly greater among the religious, and it makes such a handy excuse for the men.

themoderate; Fact is we do know the assailant was a known Islamist. There is a major difference between someone who believes in Islam and is a Muslim, and an Islamist. Islamists use the religion for various political agendas. In Moslem countries where there is no separation of Church and State that has ramifications, but we do not have a say on what they do there. However, when it happens in our own back yard, we do have a right to point out it is inconsistent with our American values, our laws, and it is important to assimilate and respect our culture and laws.

I don’t know why any crime a Muslim commits is always linked back to Islam. I think what defines the character and behavior of a person is more than just religion; it is more complicated than that. I don’t know if this guy who killed his wife is driven by religious motive or not; for now it is an assumption. Even if it were an act driven by religious zeal then that person is a nut case, a Muslim or not. I am Muslim and I don’t see any reason for someone to kill his wife or any other person for some silly reason like honor killing and such.

In the Quran, taking another person’s life is forbidden, except in wars or matters of capital punishment. Life is considered sacred and no one should take killing lightly as indicated in the one place in the Quran:

Say (God here is commanding Muhammad to tell his people): "Come, let me convey unto you what God has [really] forbidden to you:

Do not ascribe divinity, in any way, to aught beside Him; and [do not offend against but, rather,] do good unto your parents; and do not kill your children for fear of poverty - [for] it is We who shall provide sustenance for you as well as for them; and do not commit any shameful deeds, be they open or secret;

and do not take any human being's life-[the life] which God has declared to be SACRED -otherwise than in [the pursuit of] justice: this has He enjoined upon you so that you might use your reason.”

DITLD writes: “Religion is one of the primary characteristics of culture. Reliigons define culture, especially religions that are politically dominating and aggressive, such as ... guess what?”

Continue,

If that’s the case then since you call yourself a Christian, you might tell us about say:

- The history of slavery and its brutality in the United States a nation built on Christian ethics.

- White supremacy and the prevalent racism in this country.

- And not so long ago of burning at the stakes, which was the preferred method of killing among Christians, of anyone who dared to challenge any of the Church’s doctrine.

- Burning of so-called witches, among other countless heinous cruelties.

- In the United States on average 1100 women are murdered each year in cases of domestic violence; that's an average of three women every day.

“According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, which includes crimes that were not reported to the police, 232,960 women in the U.S. were raped or sexually assaulted in 2006. That's more than 600 women every day.”

What does all this say about your Christianity? What say you?

In my opinion all cultures are not immune from violence against women. Having said I believe some cases of violence against women in Muslim societies is perpetrated by men who think they are being true to the teaching of their religion. However what passes for religion is but a product of centuries old tradition, customs and culture, like say patriarchal type societies.

And then he says:This antiquated old ramshackle excuse for a religion has got to get up to speed with the modern world, or else sink into utter nihilistic self-destruction.

With that kind of general swipe, all I can say is he is, to borrow from the scientist Fritz Zwicky, a spherically ignoramus person and this episode serves only as an excuse for his bigoted views.

Moderate,

"If a murder was done by a Moslem
Then it was done because he was a Moslem"

We're not talking about a generic murder here. We're talking about a beheading. A BEHEADING! Have you ever heard of a non muslim in modern times beheading his wife over an embarrassment?

Susan,

Em... Another Sally-gism:

If a murder was done by a Moslem
Then it was done because he was a Moslem.

So much for logic...

Do we know anything about the guy who did it? Did he have other risk factors like substance abuse? History of weapons related violence? Apparently he was under a restraining order from a court, so he must have shown violent tendencies before.

Do these co-vary with religiosity? Is there any real data out there on this phenomenon, or this particular guy? Should he have been committed for psychological prior to this act?

What bothers me about this case is how a brutal murder ends up only as a second degree homicide charge. Why?

Let's face it. There are serious roadblocks that must be resolved between interpretation of this patriarchal religion, its teachings that include spousal abuse and inequalities between men and women, and the founding principles of our nation.

Islamists try to appease and soften the reality of their political agenda to an ignorant American public, which needs to be exposed as it is inconsistent with our American democratic values. This is simply unacceptable.

Just as not all aspects of the Old Testament are applicable to modern 21st century realities, so to the time has come to modernize and Americanize Islam to fit in with American society and its values. What exists in Pakistan, Iran, or in Saudi Arabia today, is neither what we need nor want for Americans citizens -- native born or naturalized. People must assimilate and be a productive part of our society, whilst being proud of their heritage. It's essential to disassociate with the extremism and political emotionalism of Middle-East where inappropriate behaviours mixing politics with religion are the norm. This is NOT respected in our secular American society because Americans know the historical dangers which are like spraying gasoline onto a fire. Living in American society, we must all respect American values by not trying to impose inconsistent values or behaviors. Otherwise we must take steps to remove/deport immigrant troublemakers and foreign group organizers who are supporting terrorists, etc., just as Great Britain has been doing by expelling dangerous individuals.

"Why is it so difficult for people to understand that Muslims are people first, Muslims second. People kill people. End of story."

Jbrinkmeyer,

I think this is an oversimplification.

Of course humans are humans first, religious believers or non-believers only thereafter. This applies to everyone in the world.

But I don't think you can dismiss this case as just another murder committed by one human upon another, given the deliberate and symbolic nature of the killing.

Beheading is ritual killing. In some cultures, it's used as criminal punishment; in some cultures, it's used to make some kind of a political or religious point; in some cultures, it's used to exact revenge. But it's always deliberate -- in a way that most domestic violence and most street homicides are not.

When a person is killed ritualistically in the United States, investigators invariably look for a cultural or religious component (or a history of severe mental illness). That's because ritual killings are part of a larger message from one entity to another.

Western civilization is no stranger to that kind "lesson-teaching." In medieval Europe, and continuing well into the 18th century, people were routinely beheaded for political or heretical activity, and their heads were displayed on pikes in highly trafficked areas. The message was undeniable: If you do or believe as this person did, your head will end up here, too.

So, no, this isn't a singularly Muslim thing. However, since the number of cultures that still practice ritual killings has dwindled, those that still do are the first to be identified and examined when such a killing occurs.

This is not an episode of Muslim-bashing, nor is the crime representative of typical domestic violence. But we do need to go forth with what we know in an effort to understand -- and prevent -- this kind of barbarity whenever it occurs.

JBRINKMEYER ,

"A few weeks ago a man who was a deacon in his church killed his wife and two children then himself. Was this a "Christian" murder?"

I don't know, did he crucify them or kill them in some other ritualistic or religious way like beheading?

YOU: "Why is it so difficult for people to understand that Muslims are people first, Muslims second"

Because that's not what their book says or even what the name means. Islam means submission. To the will of God. Muslim first. Person second.

YOU: "People kill people. End of story"

Yes and guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Guns are good. Just like Islam.

Domestic violence? Honor killings? How about simply a murder like thousands of other murders by "Christians" "Muslims" "Hindus" "Sikhs" "Atheists" "Buddhists" you name it. In other words, why label it? A few weeks ago a man who was a deacon in his church killed his wife and two children then himself. Was this a "Christian" murder?

Why is it so difficult for people to understand that Muslims are people first, Muslims second. People kill people. End of story.

To discuss this crime as common domestic violence purpitrated in the United States of America is plain rediculous. This is a Pakistani islamic wife murder performed as an islamic retualistic honor killing. This is a man who took his koranic teachings to heart and it wouldn't surprise anyone who is familiar with Talibanic observances of the faith that this husband in particuolar feels absolutely no remorse other than the loss of personal property that he only regrets he in the end, 'even using the actions and punishments taught specifically in the koran,' he wasn't able to control. In the end he and his false religion did and I'm sure feels he did control at least whether she lived or died. Pakistanic islamic ritualistic honor killing. That is the perfect criminalistic description of this crime and it is indeed exactly the action and evidence produced from it, that prosecutors MUST use to prosecute, try, convict and punish the perpitrator of this crime. Whether it's islamic, Pakistani or an honor killing shouldn't even be a question here. The history and examples are easily and readily viewable in numerous cases of the same crimes being committed here and in Pakistan as well as hundreds of clear examples of it's teaching in the koran, hadith and the personal examples presented by mohammed himself in his own actions and writings. Prosecute the Pakistani islamic retualistic honor killer and use the history, evidence and teachings of the koran, hadith and mohammed in order to in the future attempt to stop anymore from being committed here in the future as well as to prosecute the ones you won't be able to catch before being committed. As long as you allow islamic Pakistanis to immagrate to your country; you'll have to prepare and train your police and prosecutors to deal with this clearly islamic based crime and islamic taught abuse of women. Sorry, but it's what you get when you allow this ideology and it's obvious followers to immagrate to your shores. What is is not he question; the question is what are the police, prosecutors and legislatures going to do to deal with it in our country.

Caddieo

FYI:

Religion is one of the primary characteristics of culture. Reliigons define culture, especially religions that are politically dominating and aggressive, such as ... guess what?

If only Islamic cultures could cut out the antiquted, feudal, and oppressive Islamic influences that seek to repress 50% of the population.

Islamic cultures will always, ALWAYS be behind other cultures as long as they seek to subjugate 50% of their human potential. This system of doing things simply will not fly in the modern world, and unfortunately for Islam, the modern world is the only world that we have.

You know, to paraphrase a political slogan:

"It's the twenty-first century! Get over it!"

I believe we are confusing cultural and religious influences here. The common denominator is domestic violence based on a patriarchal or misogynistic mind-set. In this country, the end result would be shooting or stabbing. Beheading is just not part of the American culture. But it is in other cultures so that is what you would resort to if a descendant of that culture. Whether the predominant religion of that culture has a casual or causal relationship is something that can be argued on ad infinitum without a unanimous conclusion as the previous posts illustrate.

In Memory of Aasiya Hassan--

O Islam, Islam, violent Islam,
Moha, illiterate and hallucinating,
O Islam, Islam, violent Islam,
Moha greed and lustful, womanizing,
Was he too,

O Islam, O Islam, violent Islam,
Moha, warmongering and hateful,
Was he too,

O Islam, O Islam, violent Islam,
Sunnis of hate, Shiites of late,
Even Pretty Wingie Thingies cannot
Save us from O Islam's hate.

Save us from these Islamic FEMs,
Flaws, Errors, Muck and Stench,
They ooze from the rocks of earth,
Like worms of death and wrench.

Born, Bred, and Brainwashed too,
Whatever, whatever to do?
Truth, Truth, History and Truth,
Let it Ring True, Freedom, Freedom
Free at Last and much left to do!!!

Rubytues63 said:

"Determining whether Islam is actually the inspiration for Mr. Hassan’s crime might be like trying to determine whether the chicken or the egg came first."

Oh come now. It is obvious, isn't it?

I think this is not looking good for Islam.

This antiquated old ramshackle excuse for a religion has got to get up to speed with the modern world, or else sink into utter nihilistic self-destruction.

My gripes with Islam:

male machismo narcisim;
repressed sexuality;
racism against the so-called "infidels."

I think in the Christian West, we call all these things self-rightious hypocrisy, watered down after hundreds of years of unending fighting and conflict.

Good luck, Islam!

Islamic faith is delusion. And once delusion is condoned, and supported, pretty much anything goes, doesn't it?

Onofrio,

"If an observer takes this Buffalo case as somehow characteristic of Muslims or religionists in general, what does that imply about the observer?"

That he has never heard of a non religious man beheading his wife over an embarrassment.

Ruby Tues 63

No, Islam's crime is not that it wouldn't forbid pre-existing barbaric customs in the Sixth Century. Mohammad prohibited a HUGE NUMBER of customs, including the infanticide of girls, a custom rampant in Arabia at the time.

He *temporarily* elevated the standards for women, but as Bernard Lewis points out, within 50 years of the Prophet's death all had gone to a state WORSE THAN pre-Islamic Arabia. [See Dr. Hassan's book on women's status in pre-Islamic Arabia for an idea about where things stood, which was much better than it is now.]

However, even during the Prophet's time there were numerous discussions and "deals" with warlords in which he sold back to them rights to women that were previously given. The most poignant surah of the Qur'an is the last: in which the Prophet counsels men to be good to women (in which he sounds VERY guilty about their losses), but in the end is forced to say that men still get to control them.

Seeing this in context can certainly one believe that the Prophet intended complete freedom and equality (as apparently also existed in Christianity during its first two centuries) only to have it taken by rank patriarchalists (as it was in Christianity) after the death of the Prophet, completing the erosion of rights that went on even during his lifetime.

What we can fault Islam for today is that it constantly gives power to radical imams bent on cementing the control of women and that both its men AND its women would rather depend on the West to straighten this out than to stand up themselves. If we are cowards (we are), so are they.

"NOW cannot resist labeling Muzzamil Hassan’s crime as being religiously inspired."

RubyTues63,

I think you may be overlooking the most important bit of evidence here.

Domestic violence is a product of rage. Beheading is a ritualistic type of killing. It's done to make a point, it has specific meaning, and it isn't generally carried out in a frenzy of anger (as most domestic violence is).

I don't think one needs to stoop to racial profiling to begin asking questions about a murder that has all the hallmarks of ritualistic vengeance. Especially when the perpetrator practices a religion that, in some incarnations throughout the world, condones and even encourages such vengeance under the heading of "honor killing."

We are told by numerous groups (such as NOW and the NAACP), how dangerous and unfair stereotypes can be. Airport screeners are not supposed to focus any more attention on people who appear to be from the Middle East than they are to someone who appears to be from Scandinavia, despite the fact that there have been remarkably few blond haired, blue eyed individuals intent on crashing a jet. That would be racial profiling. Racial profiling is racism. Racism is bad.

Despite saying they are against any form of stereotyping, NOW cannot resist labeling Muzzamil Hassan’s crime as being religiously inspired. Are they speaking from first hand knowledge, or is this crime just something they can use to focus attention on the issue of violence against women?

I applaud Andrew Benz (the police chief of Orchard Park) for speaking only to the things he knows to be true and not speculating on facts not yet in evidence. Leave that to the bloggers and other groups with a political ax to grind. Jury pools are tainted enough as it is.

Determining whether Islam is actually the inspiration for Mr. Hassan’s crime might be like trying to determine whether the chicken or the egg came first. Despite their claims to purity, religions tend to be influenced by the social values of the countries in which they operate. For example: rules limiting the roles of women in the Roman Catholic Church are not strictly Christian, but Roman. So would killing a wife who had embarrassed her husband have been a crime in Pakistan before Mohammad created Islam? I doubt it.

So, if Islam is responsible for Ms Hussan’s death, is its crime that it failed (in the 6th Century) to forbid a pre-existing barbaric custom? Susan, I thought you wanted religion to keep its hands off government. Please make up your mind!

Rhetorical musings:

Is domestic violence statistically less prevalent among the non-religious?

Are there religious, social, or ethnic groups among whom domestic violence is statistically more prevalent?

If an observer takes this Buffalo case as somehow characteristic of Muslims or religionists in general, what does that imply about the observer?