• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Presodent seeks to define "real" Islam. Is "real" Christianity next?

 
 
 
A

arcadia

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2004
Messages
51
Location
WV
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I just saw President Obama's speech at the Prayer Breakfast in which he claimed that ISIL's horrific actions were not performed by true Muslims. He went on to say that no religion condones violence and brutality.

While I like the President he is horribly wrong if he thinks there is any "true" or correct version of any religion. Or that no true religion condones violence. They all do. That is because religion is not about truth, or the search for it, but about social control. All three of the Abrahamic religions seek to control, in the name of the "only" god what their "believers" do. They control what they eat, how they dress, whom they can marry, when, with whom and how they have sex and what they can learn about their own faith. All of them have, and continue to, sponsor violence in the service of their silly, completely unprovable, and always disputable beliefs.

Honest, "god-fearing" christians should be concerned that Obama or any administration will seek to define what sect or cult or huge parish is the only true version of christianity.

And those of us who reject the entire mishegoss of competing sky fairies, commandments, should also be concerned that our President actually believes that there must be one true valid sky fairy whose rules can be determined and should be enforced.

All gods are jealous gods who serve at the whim of their interpreters, whose motives, based in unprovable fictions, are self-serving and almost always directed at crushing dissent or disagreement by any means necessary. The determination of religious truth is absolutely impossible and no civic authority should ever embark on such a fools errand. The infinite chain of schisms shattering the solidarity of all religions is ample proof of the pernicious nature of such beliefs.

As I posted early today how could anyone ever proove that the biblical scriptures prescribing burning to death humans for various "sins", coupled with Jesus' determination that all his followers follow those presecription and not deviate by one jot or tittle from them is not true Christianity?
 
arcadia said:
While I like the President he is horribly wrong if he thinks there is any "true" or correct version of any religion.
Click to expand...

This is a good point to keep in mind.

Honest, "god-fearing" christians should be concerned that Obama or any administration will seek to define what sect or cult or huge parish is the only true version of christianity.
Click to expand...

Also a good point.



But then, how do we blame religion for bad stuff?
 
I honestly doubt Obama was expressing a belief or opinion about Islam he actually holds. He's the President. The most PR-friendly thing for a public figure in his position to do is to assure everybody that ISIS are utterly distinct from any group likely to be found in America. And that means severing the association with religion, one of the most powerful drivers of group identity. He isn't saying anything about religion or Islam per se, it's just a means of declaring the enemy as 'other.'
 
I'm just glad to see that as Commander-in-Chief he's on top of the threat Medieval Christians pose to our safety and well-being.
 
dismal said:
I'm just glad to see that as Commander-in-Chief he's on top of the threat Medieval Christians pose to our safety and well-being.
Click to expand...

Hey, maybe you can sit there being unconcerned about the threat posed by time travelling Inquisitors, but some of us actually care about the lives of innocent American citizens. :mad:
 
Rhea: "

But then, how do we blame religion for bad stuff?


Unfortunately, the default position of popular opinion AND the political and judicial systems is that religion is a good thing, worthy of kow-towing at prayer breakfasts, tax breaks, being allowed to educate children etc. That is the result of centuries of propaganda and maneuvering by the priests, elders, imams etc.

Confronting that strongly held position head-on generally does not work.

I think the best way to erode religion's position in society is to do so on religions own terms, using as a primary tool, it's own foundational texts and history of suppression and violence. The simple ideas that "God is not good" and his self appointed spokesmen are often greedy controlling bastards wearing silly hats and sending their lambs to slaughter and be slaughtered, when demonstrated and pointed out, is our best weapon.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
dismal said:
I'm just glad to see that as Commander-in-Chief he's on top of the threat Medieval Christians pose to our safety and well-being.
Click to expand...

Hey, maybe you can sit there being unconcerned about the threat posed by time travelling Inquisitors, but some of us actually care about the lives of innocent American citizens. :mad:
Click to expand...

That's just it, their chief weapon is surprise.
 
The line about the 'hijacking' of Islam goes back at least to the first Gulf War, doesn't it? It's now just background, boilerplate rhetoric. Who takes it seriously?
 
dismal said:
Tom Sawyer said:
Hey, maybe you can sit there being unconcerned about the threat posed by time travelling Inquisitors, but some of us actually care about the lives of innocent American citizens. :mad:
Click to expand...

That's just it, their chief weapon is surprise.
Click to expand...


Funny, a minute before I read this, I found a passage from an A Beka history textbook for home schoolers and charter schools indicating that the 1950's were a great period in our country because we had "Crusades". As in, I suppose, Billy Graham Crusades. I wonder how many doctors, nurses, gay folks and even uppity brown ones were killed at good ol' Billy's feet.
 
PyramidHead said:
I honestly doubt Obama was expressing a belief or opinion about Islam he actually holds. He's the President. The most PR-friendly thing for a public figure in his position to do is to assure everybody that ISIS are utterly distinct from any group likely to be found in America. And that means severing the association with religion, one of the most powerful drivers of group identity. He isn't saying anything about religion or Islam per se, it's just a means of declaring the enemy as 'other.'
Click to expand...

Let his statements (and other's rebuttals) speak:

Obama: “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
Obama: "And if, in fact, we defend the legal right of a person to insult another’s religion, we’re equally obligated to use our free speech to condemn such insults — (applause) — and stand shoulder-to-shoulder with religious communities..."

In contrast, Russ Douthat of the NYT: http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/the-blasphemy-we-need/?_r=0

… and that kind of blasphemy is precisely the kind that needs to be defended, because it’s the kind that clearly serves a free society’s greater good. If a large enough group of someones is willing to kill you for saying something, then it’s something that almost certainly needs to be said, because otherwise the violent have veto power over liberal civilization, and when that scenario obtains it isn’t really a liberal civilization any more. Again, liberalism doesn’t depend on everyone offending everyone else all the time, and it’s okay to prefer a society where offense for its own sake is limited rather than pervasive. But when offenses are policed by murder, that’s when we need more of them, not less, because the murderers cannot be allowed for a single moment to think that their strategy can succeed. ...

But if publishing something might get you slaughtered and you publish it anyway, by definition you are striking a blow for freedom, and that’s precisely the context when you need your fellow citizens to set aside their squeamishness and rise to your defense.
Click to expand...

Clearly Obama is more concerned about blasphemy against Muslims, Christians, etc. more than free speech. In the end, he would just as soon let them win by intimidating their critics into silence.
 
maxparrish said:
Let his statements (and other's rebuttals) speak:

Obama: “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
Obama: "And if, in fact, we defend the legal right of a person to insult another’s religion, we’re equally obligated to use our free speech to condemn such insults — (applause) — and stand shoulder-to-shoulder with religious communities..."

In contrast, Russ Douthat of the NYT: http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/the-blasphemy-we-need/?_r=0

… and that kind of blasphemy is precisely the kind that needs to be defended, because it’s the kind that clearly serves a free society’s greater good. If a large enough group of someones is willing to kill you for saying something, then it’s something that almost certainly needs to be said, because otherwise the violent have veto power over liberal civilization, and when that scenario obtains it isn’t really a liberal civilization any more. Again, liberalism doesn’t depend on everyone offending everyone else all the time, and it’s okay to prefer a society where offense for its own sake is limited rather than pervasive. But when offenses are policed by murder, that’s when we need more of them, not less, because the murderers cannot be allowed for a single moment to think that their strategy can succeed. ...

But if publishing something might get you slaughtered and you publish it anyway, by definition you are striking a blow for freedom, and that’s precisely the context when you need your fellow citizens to set aside their squeamishness and rise to your defense.
Click to expand...

Clearly Obama is more concerned about blasphemy against Muslims, Christians, etc. more than free speech. In the end, he would just as soon let them win by intimidating their critics into silence.
Click to expand...

I would say that he is clearly more concerned about appearing to condemn blasphemy against religious people, as they make up the majority of the electorate. Not that it makes a difference, since he'd say the same thing whether he meant it or not. He's just that kind of public figure, and he's playing to the whims of two very different groups: (a) conservatives who want a president who will always give religion-in-general the benefit of the doubt (but would prefer it be Christianity), and (b) liberals who want a president who will always give Muslims the benefit of the doubt. It's too shrewd a political move for me to think he just got up on the podium and said what was really on his mind.
 
What amuses me is that "Muslims" and "Islamists" are pretended to be quite different things, when in fact these words come from the same root word. They are used as convenient labels to differentiate between different levels of dogma. Yet from an atheist standpoint, all dogmas involving Gods are surprisingly similar. And as for "terrorist" - few words have been so abused. These days anyone who is not your best friend can be so labelled and many fools will swallow it.
 
Draconis said:
What amuses me is that "Muslims" and "Islamists" are pretended to be quite different things, when in fact these words come from the same root word. They are used as convenient labels to differentiate between different levels of dogma. Yet from an atheist standpoint, all dogmas involving Gods are surprisingly similar. And as for "terrorist" - few words have been so abused. These days anyone who is not your best friend can be so labelled and many fools will swallow it.
Click to expand...

It's not so much the different level of dogma as whether they try to impose it or not.
 
arcadia said:
Funny, a minute before I read this, I found a passage from an A Beka history textbook for home schoolers and charter schools indicating that the 1950's were a great period in our country because we had "Crusades". As in, I suppose, Billy Graham Crusades. I wonder how many doctors, nurses, gay folks and even uppity brown ones were killed at good ol' Billy's feet.
Click to expand...

Good thought.

First thing I thought of when people scoffed at his speech because his criticism of Christians was about Christians hundreds of years ago were two words: Northern Ireland.

Then of course I wondered why people would dismiss such criticism when we're still fighting to give gays the right to marry and women to keep rights over their own reproduction.

Why should we be doing that hundreds of years after the Crusades? Oh, that's right, Christianity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom