patrick.net

Additionally I do agree that religion and atheism is independent of virtue.

Inner Strife says

Particularly in the area of practicing temperance (in areas such as alcohol consumption, food, sexual habits, etc

That sort of virtue, with no actual real-world impact, is entirely subjective if not meaningless.

I mean, really, are the dietary laws against eating lobster tails producing virtue? I think not. Just because a religion spells out explicit rituals, behaviorial requirements, and dietary restriction doesn't result in a virtuous life in the global, interpersonal sense of the word.

A religious tradition may by scattershot find some useful rules to dogmatize, but even then these are often half-baked or honored in the breach, like the islamic injunctions against interest.

A lot of these rules retard Sharia economies, though I do admit I like the general idea of Musharaka al-Mutanaqisa (diminishing partnership in a holding vehicle). It aligns well with how I think residential lending should work.

chanakya says

illions of christians believe that jesus is the GOD
billions of muslims believe that allah is the GOD.

"... and I believe [Christians and Muslims] worship the same god" -- George Bush, 2003.

tee hee hee

“… and I believe [Christians and Muslims] worship the same god” — George Bush, 2003.

Proof George Bush is an even lousier theologian than he was a president.

. . . that's still debatable (smile)

Response to Troy:

"That sort of virtue, with no actual real-world impact, is entirely subjective if not meaningless."

I disagree: it keeps people from becoming alcoholics, obese, and disease-infested--but this was only one example. How about this:

The Beatitudes
1Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, 2and he began to teach them saying:
3"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Salt and Light
13"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.

14"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

"like the islamic injunctions against interest."

Interest is an evil. I don't have a problem with charging a fee on money. But perpetual-compounded interest I have a problem with. Pretty much what the IMF does to every nation below the equator.

"and I believe [Christians and Muslims] worship the same god” — George Bush, 2003."

Interesting. For once George Bush actually said something intelligent. Too bad he didn't understand what he said =P. If you understand the evolution of Christianity and Islam, and the history of that region, then you know it's quite close to the truth. The only problem I have with George Bush is that he's George Bush and my IQ is higher than his. But, he's a politician. They're not much different. Power and re-election makes the political-system go 'round. It doesn't matter if they can make a sentence or not. Obama makes great sentences. But he's just as corrupt. Ultimately our civil rights just get shredded and taken away no matter who gets into office. I guess that's one of the reasons I haven't went the atheist route. I believe in the freedom for people to believe whatever they want, and not be persecuted for it. The only restriction: You have to respect a difference of conviction and be non-violent.

I pose a question to you all: If we were to have no religion(s), would we still have violence and bloodshed?

It’ll be interesting to see if devout atheists end up pursuing the same errors that religious people have. If I understand human nature properly, I’d think yes. Particularly in the area of tolerance.

Inner Strife says

Ultimately our civil rights just get shredded and taken away no matter who gets into office

Funny thing is, I've experience no identifiable loss of civil rights this past decade. If anything Obama has expanded rights by calling a moratorium on Federal prosecution of legalized marijuana distributors.

I disagree: it keeps people from becoming alcoholics, obese, and disease-infested–but this was only one example.

How very Straussian of you.

How about this:

The problem is that religion as it is run today in this country generally claims to be exclusive and does not actively seek the wisdom available to be found in other creeds. This is its loss and the fundamental reason I lost any interest in organized religion. It is really organized mass stupidity.

If we were to have no religion(s), would we still have violence and bloodshed?

Of course. But . . . The lack of religious differences though would remove one cause of violence both on the personal and state level. Christians in this country were very bloody-minded about wanting to f--- Saddam's shit up in 2002-2003. It was disgusting. The whole Blackwater thing with Erik Prince is also rather horrid -- there's millions of fundamentalist nutjobs trying their hardest to bring on the End Times apparently. That's really constructive.

In Response to Troy:

"Funny thing is, I’ve experience no identifiable loss of civil rights this past decade. If anything Obama has expanded rights by calling a moratorium on Federal prosecution of legalized marijuana distributors."

The Patriot Act says otherwise. Also a war that I wanted ended but that didn't happen. No difference.

"How very Straussian of you."

The difference, of course, being that practicing religion is voluntary.

"The problem is that religion as it is run today in this country generally claims to be exclusive and does not actively seek the wisdom available to be found in other creeds. This is its loss and the fundamental reason I lost any interest in organized religion. It is really organized mass stupidity."

Perhaps. It's good to be familiar with other wisdom. Exclusivity depends on the tradition. If people want to associate together based on shared convictions of right and wrong, I have no problem with it. If people want to go worship a golf-ball in their backyard, that's fine with me too.

"It is really organized mass stupidity."

That's one way to look at it. Most people are stupid.

"Of course. But . . . The lack of religious differences though would remove one cause of violence both on the personal and state level. Christians in this country were very bloody-minded about wanting to f— Saddam’s shit up in 2002-2003. It was disgusting. The whole Blackwater thing with Erik Prince is also rather horrid — there’s millions of fundamentalist nutjobs trying their hardest to bring on the End Times apparently. That’s really constructive."

I don't believe in authoritarian thought control. I'm a liberal. Some of the fundamentalist Christians are more close-minded people, a little more similar to yourself.

I agree with you about the whole end-times scenario. What scares me most is that it has the potential to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm a skeptic; I don't believe in much prophecy. I do believe in self-fulfilling prophecy.

Inner Strife says

The Patriot Act says otherwise. Also a war that I wanted ended but that didn’t happen. No difference.

I *really* can't get worked up about PATRIOT. Is there anything in particular that has actually affected you, or is this just BS. nb, when I was living in Japan in the 90s I just naturally assumed calls [edit: to the US] were being intercepted. I don't like that loss of privacy but as long as there are no actual abuses by people with access to this stuff I can live with it.

As for the war(s), it's kinda disingenuous blaming the politicians now. The whole thing is just a f---ing political football. No matter what Obama does he'll catch s--- from 30% of the population, because we are a nation of idiots. And I don't pretend to know what's the best strategy for Afghanistan, other than not killing innocent people. This particular fear was seen as typical Democratic wimpiness going in, but at least now is migrating into the centrality of our military doctrine apparently.

The difference, of course, being that practicing religion is voluntary

Wrong Strauss? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss

If people want to go worship a golf-ball in their backyard, that’s fine with me too.

Just don't call that virtue. It dilutes the meaning of the word.

are more close-minded people, a little more similar to yourself.

Just because I think the religions I've been exposed to are bs doesn't mean I'm closed-minded. Anyone who believes in the faith they were inculcated with when growing up are generally very closed-minded, as is trying to apply texts written thousands of years ago by goat herders and camel traders as hard and fast moral law. I'll take rationalism and empiricism, thanks.

In response to Troy:

*really* can’t get worked up about PATRIOT. Is there anything in particular that has actually affected you, or is this just BS."

Nothing has affected me yet. I'm just concerned that in time things will get worse. I like being left alone like most people to live my life in peace and philosophical reflection.

"Wrong Strauss?"

My apologies. I didn't communicate my point right. That did sound Straussian. I just meant that practicing temperance in a religious context is something one does voluntarily when one chooses to practice certain religions. It affects one's health--for the better.

"Just because I think the religions I’ve been exposed to are bs doesn’t mean I’m closed-minded. Anyone who believes in the faith they were inculcated with when growing up are generally very closed-minded, as is trying to apply texts written thousands of years ago by goat herders and camel traders as hard and fast moral law. I’ll take rationalism and empiricism, thanks."

True. I guess that I just wish more people would realize the limitations of science. Not everything is meant to be rationalized and quantified. That leads us to an inhuman place. I'm not a modernist or a postmodernist. I guess I'm the type who likes to scour the texts looking for principles. I think I'm coming from more of a neo-classicist/pre-modernist paradigm of thought.

"If people want to go worship a golf-ball in their backyard, that’s fine with me too."

It fits with the principle of freedom! Although that is vicious! Ha! I had a mind-picture of physically paying worship to the ball, not a round of putting golf. Anyway, you get my gist =P

Great response, thanks. I tend to get argumentative on the internet but that was a constructive reply.

You're welcome. It's always a pleasure communicating with good minds.

What does stuff about religion do on a real estate blog?
Please don't take advantage of this platform to broadcast some pretty pathetic unrelated propaganda.

Whether any of those texts contains explicit violence or not (I don't believe in any...), whether any of these religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, all in fact) was built on violence or not doesn't matter. All these religions are inherently dangerous because a large number of "followers" or "believers" are there to be led, to be shown the path without asking questions. Just put the wrong "leader" in place and you've got a an explosive cocktail.
BTW, I've been to a few buddhist group meditation sessions, and yes even there, you find people who really miss the point and unconsciously try to guide you, in their way.

I can easily find as much, not to so say more, religious driven violence in the history of Christianity as in that of Islam, despite the fact that, according to the Bible, Jesus didn't rob/rape/kill... I won't say anything about other religions because I don't know them well, but I expect the very same patterns.

The current issue with the muslim world doesn't come from Islam or from the Koran. There's a crisis in the Middle East. A very modern one. A 100 years ago you were much better off being Jewish in a muslim country than in say Germany...

The Middle East has entered a phase of decline a few centuries ago. That's a problem of its own. One can only expect instability, extremism from regions in decline. Cf the rise of nazism in post WW1 Germany. Those Germans weren't different from those we know today and I have a very positive opinion of all the Germans I know.

The West (Europe first, joined later by the US) was prompt to take advantage of this weakness. It started back in the 18th century.
Jewish settlers created the last colony of the Western (mostly European) imperialist wave of the 19th and early 20th century. Had the French obtained the mandate in 1920, they would have created some Christian state instead, leveraging the Christians that, then, made up 20% of the local population. They only got Syria and created Lebanon. I'll remind you that the Fort Hood killer was ... the son of Palestinian immigrants. That may have inspired him a bit more than whatever his prophet did 1400 years ago...
Meanwhile western countries support strongly an array of some of the worst dictatorships in the world. There are good reasons for that. The pathetic Saudi regime, very good friends of the Bushes and co, is pretty good at recycling oil money into western economies. They buy tons of modern fighter jets for billions, even though they don't have pilots to fly them, invest billions in banks before they crash... Divide, conquer, control. Oil, oil, oil.

Let me quote Noam Chomsky:
""" Forty-five years ago, President Dwight D. Eisenhower and his staff discussed what he called the "campaign of hatred against us" in the Arab world, "not by the governments but by the people". The basic reason, the National Security Council advised, is the recognition that the US supports corrupt and brutal governments that block democracy and development, and does so because of its concern "to protect its interest in Near East oil". """

Back to the "terrorist" wave. The need for immediate defense has to be combined with something a bit deeper than quoting parts of the Koran or any text. I can only hope that the end of oil is close.

In response to eyeopener:

"What does stuff about religion do on a real estate blog?
Please don’t take advantage of this platform to broadcast some pretty pathetic unrelated propaganda."

We prefer freedom of thought and good analysis. Something the news media (all of it does not do).

"All these religions are inherently dangerous because a large number of “followers” or “believers” are there to be led, to be shown the path without asking questions. Just put the wrong “leader” in place and you’ve got a an explosive cocktail."

I am a follower of a religion. Religion is an idea. The only thing I follow is principles. How do I know you're not a follower of a system of beliefs? Do you follow a leader?

"I can easily find as much, not to so say more, religious driven violence in the history of Christianity as in that of Islam, despite the fact that, according to the Bible, Jesus didn’t rob/rape/kill… I won’t say anything about other religions because I don’t know them well, but I expect the very same patterns."

Yes. So is this violent nature a product of human nature, or of religion? I'm convinced humans have the same potential for goodness as evil. I don't think religion has much to do with it.

"The current issue with the muslim world doesn’t come from Islam or from the Koran. There’s a crisis in the Middle East. A very modern one. A 100 years ago you were much better off being Jewish in a muslim country than in say Germany…"

This is true. The Muslims primarily became irritated after mass-migration to Israel and the Palestinians were pushed out.

"Those Germans weren’t different from those we know today and I have a very positive opinion of all the Germans I know."

Me too. Some of my good friends are there.

I used to be a muslim until 9/11, I don't understand how these people can justify killing inocent people in the name of God. I'm a proud Agnostic, religion is just a waste of time. How can you believe in the koran or bible when man wrote them. I only believe what i see with my own eyes

To all who mistakenly call Israel the last Western Imperialist Colony created by Jews, I'd like to clear up some points of history that people seem to forget. This won't be popular. And these are the facts, like them or not.

Jews have always lived in the lands of Judea, Samaria, Israel, the Negev, and across the Jordan into Moabite territories. All through the ages Jews have lived there. Even before the modern establishment of the current State of Israel there were Middle Eastern Jews living there all along. They are called the Sephardim. The Sephardim lived in predominately Islamic countries after the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of Islam in the Middle East. So the notion that somehow Palestinian Arabs were forced off of "their" land is not 100% true and it's not 100% false.

The Ottoman Turks did nothing to improve Judea, Samaria, Israel, and the Negev into modern times. The land was left to whither and the desertification was spreading. Much of the area was swamp land. Arabs and Jews were neighbors who shared the land and lived side by side with each other in the province.

Once the British took control after the Ottoman Turks and created the Mandate of Palestine, they absorbed the Sephardic Jews and the Palestinian Arabs living on the lands of Judea, Samaria, Israel, and the Negev (and actually Gaza which is ancient Philistia from where the Roman Province of Palestine got its name and it stuck).

So, before the establishment of the modern State of Israel we had Sephardic Jews and Palestinian Arabs living in relative peace together on not very desirable land in the British Mandate of Palestine.

More trouble started when Zionism took hold in Eastern and Central Europe where Jews were concentrated in Europe. The nation states of the time held regular persecutions of Jews where they were living. These are Ashkhenazim (Eastern European Jews). We (they) look like Europeans because of generations of some mixing with the locals when fleeing the Middle East during persecutions there.

The late 19th Century was a very difficult time for Eastern European Jews because of persecution going on in Russia, Poland, and Germany, and other Eastern European lands. During that time Zionism (the idea that Jews are meant to live in Zion (which is a religious term for the Temple Mount in Jerusalem applied to the whole area of Israel, Samaria, and Judea) rose because Eastern European Jews wanted to escape oppression. They found it difficult because the Ottoman Turks didn't want more Jews in their Empire in their Palestinian Province. Ashkhenazim (Eastern European Jews) began to make the migration to Israel, Samaria, and Judea to join Sephardic Jews who have lived there for thousands of years. There were many problems and persecutions from the Turks and then the British who took over from the Turks. As more Jews came to Israel, Samaria, and Judea the Arab population became nervous because they were afraid of losing their majority in the province.

The Holocost in Europe during WWII put great pressure on the British to allow Jewish refugees to flee to the British Mandate of Palestine. The British fought this along with other Arab States. Some Jews came anyway. Many were turned back to be gassed in concentration camps by the Nazis and some remained as illegal immigrants.

Arab fears were stoked by the partition of the British Mandate of Palestine into several States in 1947 after WWII. The British and the UN established a Jewish State called Israel and it had land mainly around the Galilee, Tel Aviv to Haifa on the Mediterranean Coast, and the Negev Desert. The British and the UN established the Kingdom of Jordan (Transjordan). The the lands of Samaria and Judea (Now the West Bank) including Jerusalem, and Gaza was supposed to be a newly created Palestinian Arab State. The Jews accepted the UN plan and the Arabs rejected it.

The conflict was inevitable between Jews an Arabs at that point. Both sides started fighting. Eventually Egypt, Jordan, and Syria invaded and assured the Arab Palestinian population that they would win the war and "drive the Jews into the Sea." The Arab Palestinian civilian population fled the areas of conflict so that they would evade the danger of being in a war zone and to allow the Arab armies to have easier access to Jewish targets.

What happened? The Jews won and established a modern State of Israel capturing lands that were once owned by Palestinian Arabs and retaining the land that was theirs. And now comes the stoking of the problem. Israelis didn't want Palestinian Arabs to return to their lands that were now annexed through war into the State of Israel. Would you want people who wanted your annihilation as direct neighbors? But then what happened is that the Arab world wouldn't take their cousins into their lands as citizens and put them in refugee camps where they weren't allowed to have rights or integrate into the countries of Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. The Israelis came to occupy the West Bank and Gaza later and eventually the Sinai in a later war. Sinai was returned to Egypt eventually. But even today Israel is the defacto occupier of the West Bank and Gaza. The Arabs still haven't allowed displaced Arab Palestinians to become citizens of countries where they hold them as refugees to try to force Israel into allowing these Arab Palestinians and their descendants to enter back into the Modern State of Israel.

The Arab/Muslim countries expelled all of their Jews and took all Jewish property away from their Jewish citizens. These Sephardic Jews were the second major wave of immigration to Israel. They simply had nowhere else to go where they felt that they could remain true to their cultures. So, what people tend to forget is that not only did Israel disallow Palestinian Arabs to return after the War of Independence, the Arab/Muslim countries seized the property of Jews in their countries and expelled Jews from their countries not allowing them to return.

The poor Palestinian Arabs are caught in a very difficult political, economic, and sociological situation. They have a state in name only really. Control of their territories comes from outside (either Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, or even Egypt at times). And they haven't given up their demands of moving into lands that they once held before a war that they lost, and they lost more than once.

Israelis are held hostage more than they want to admit because they must retain control over territory where people are hostile to their intervention. Israelis suffer acts of terrorism on their own territory and they pay a huge price for the unjust way they treat Palestinian Arabs.

No one in this conflict has clean hands. All sides have blood on their hands and have spilled innocent blood over this complex conflict. Anyone who simplifies this into colonizers and colonized peoples makes this way too simplistic because both populations have legitimate claims to thousands of years of living on that land. Both Jews and Arabs in this conflict have refugees who have legitimate claims to property and land in countries where they don't live today.

So, as anyone can see if they study the actual factual history of the Israeli/Arab conflict, this isn't a simple one-sided victim/victimized situation. All of these people are both victims and victimizers at the same time. To pick one side or the other as the oppressor or the oppressed is simplifying a very complicated conflict.

People should stop listening to the propaganda put out by Western, Israeli, and Arab news networks and study the actual history of this conflict to understand just how complicated the conflict is. Both sides are wrong and both sides are correct. That's why this conflict is so complicated and bloody.

Sim . . . just because you SAY something is a fact, doesn't make it a fact. Much of what you claim in the body of your essay is being debunked. The Zionist publishers of the 20th century thought they could control details of history, until the internet.

Although your final paragraph is excellent.

Yachtman,

Just because some people with a political axe to grind and a mind for hating Jews write their own versions of "history" on the Internet doesn't make their accounts of "history" true.

You can't change facts. Facts are facts. You can try to re-write history using a political slant to slam one people while claiming that another people are victims on the Internet, that doesn't make it true.

What I wrote is the truth. It's backed up by historians world wide. I don't need you to believe it for it to be factual and objectively true.

Those with axes to grind who hate Jews and claim that we are all "Zionists" and that "Zionists" are somehow evil and that the "Protocols of Zion" are fact write all sorts of misinformation and lies all over the Internet. That still doesn't change the facts as they happened on the ground.

Sorry, but what I wrote is actual history as it happened. What you claim that debunks it is propaganda and lies written by people who hate Jews. Just because the history books in Gaza or the West Bank, or Syria, give a different account doesn't make it true either.

Trusted scholars world-wide who are honest know that what I've written is the actual account.

So, back at you, just because you SAY something is debunked on the Internet doesn't make it true.

Sim, very Ben Stein of you to assume my questioning 20th century propaganda could imply a hatred for 'Jews.' I am a 'Jew,' one who is embarassed by Zionism and believes God will bless 'His Chosen' with much more than just a sliver of land - I'd rather live in Costa Rica!
I look to the spoils of war to help understand the data.

Yachtman, it's self-hating Jews that are the worst propagandists of hate toward other Jews. Learn to love yourself. Learn to love your people. Then come back and talk to me.

Being "Chosen" has nothing to do with being "better" or "special." Or perhaps you were sleeping during Hebrew School. Being "Chosen" simply means that we are chosen to live as Jews and do the mitzvot (commandments). All peoples of the Earth are God's People and our Book doesn't deny this and our religion that has sprung from our Book doesn't deny this either. We as Jews are chosen to live as Jews. Other Peoples have their own ways to God. Judaism is our way. It's not necessarily the best way, but it's ours.

Just before you post a response you should know that nothing you say from now on will convince me that you aren't suffering from internalized anti-semitism. So don't bother to deny it. De-nial isn't a river in Egypt in that case.

Oh, and of what "spoils of war" do you speak? Really? Do you honestly believe that Israelis are extremely rich or something? There's no oil in Israel and agriculture is only possible because of irrigation and even with that growing food isn't a "sure thing" there. So, perhaps the joke was played on the Israelis...

Simply being a Jew doesn't mean that you can't be anti-semitic. My Great-Uncle was a big anti-semite and made the family hide its Jewishness until he died. He was a big bully. He hated Jews, African Americans, Native Americans, Mexicans, and anyone "of color." He wanted to live in a suburb of Chicago where no Jews, Blacks, or Latin people were allowed to live. So he hid his Jewishness and bullied the rest of the family into hiding their Jewishness so he could live there. He was ashamed of his heritage to the point where he hated his own people.

He died a sad and bitter old man alone because he had alienated the entire family and most of his friends by the time he had died.

May you be spared his fate.

Simchaland: Great history analysis. I have a question for you: I'd really like to know what you believe about the Khazars.

http://www.khazaria.com/khazar-diaspora.html

Do you believe this is propaganda? Or is there truth to this? This argument looks like it is supported by good evidence. I guess my point is that to be a Jew is not to be a certain race, although it can be. Hitler tried to make this argument and disastrous consequences unfolded. It's really a way of life attached to a religion and a culture. The Hebrew Bible has many examples of convert acceptance. Examples: Obadiah, Ruth, etc.

Mr pre-modernist,

The scientific/historical evidence seems to point to what that that page says. There seems to be truth in it. I know that at one point Jews who emigrated to the Khazar/Russian areas did go out and convert people in the Khazar region back when they were in a prosthelytizing period. Also Russians and Khazars converted to marry Jews who were new immigrants at the time.

So yes, there is a definite mixing of Eurasian and Jewish people that happened throughout history. That's why there are blond haired blue eyed Jews and green eyed red haired Jews.

Later in history conversions were stopped because Czarist Russia made conversion a dangerous prospect for any Rabbi and the convert.

Most Ashkhenazim (Eastern European Jews) have some Eastern European/Eurasian blood. Some Sephardim (Middle Eastern/Spanish Jews) who were living outside of Israel/Palestine have some Arab/African/Spanish blood in them too.

The Falasha Jews of Ethiopia are descended from exiled Jews and local Ethiopians who inter-married with them.

The Jewish Diaspora has had to mix in with the people with whom they live in order to survive at times. And some Jews had to remain separate from the peoples with whom they lived in order to survive too.

Judaism is a religion, certainly. And it's more than a religion. It's also a People who are drawn or tied to or originate from a strip of land in the Middle East. Jews aren't a separate race, certainly. Judaism is an ethnicity. And within Judaism there are many ethnic groups who vary in religious practice and custom and language.

What unites us is our Books, Hebrew, our One God, the Sabbath, our Holy Days, and the Land of Israel (both the figurative/spiritual Eretz Yisrael and the actual physical land if Israel.) We are still very much a tribal people even when living in modern countries where tribalism is all but extinct. We tend to "know" each other when we meet each other. Each one of us has a "Jewish Soul" that somehow most of us can "sniff out" in other Jews who may not appear to be "outwardly Jewish."

So, it is wrong to consider Jews as a homogeneous "race." We aren't a race. We are a People that has an over-arching culture that varies within different Jewish sub-ethnic groups. Jews can be found around the world in every country. Jews can and do look differently depending on ethnic background or conversion.

So, the question of "Who is a Jew?" is very complex and even Jews disagree on what makes one person a Jew and another person a non-Jew. Personally, I believe that if you self-identify as a Jew, you're a Jew. If you don't identify as a Jew and your Mother is Jewish, you're still technically a Jew by Jewish Law, and yet I don't believe it's fair to call a person who has a Jewish Mother who doesn't identify as a Jew a Jew, even though Jewish Law states otherwise. Jewish Law doesn't recognize conversion to another religion. Basically if you're born a Jew or you converted to Judaism you are always a Jew, even if you leave and join another religion. It's because being a Jew isn't just being part of a religion, it's also being part of a People/Tribe.

So, these answers can get very complicated. And no, I don't believe the Khazar Diaspora Theories to be propaganda. I believe that there is some scientific/historical evidence that points to certain truths there and that to dismiss it without careful study would be wrong.

I think it's important to resurrect this thread each time militant Muslims murder in the name of Mohammed.

Latest murders: Lybia

What's amazing is in this day and age people still believe any of this shit actually exists. Jesus, Allah, Joseph Smith, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus; they're all figments of your f***ing imagination. I really wish people would understand that but unfortunately the world is full of stupid people.

Also, RIP Vile Rat.

Thank you for posting this. The latest murders in Libya are very sad, possibly orchestrated by Al Qaeda manipulating a mob, which seems all too easy in Muslim countries (remember the Danish cartoons, and the Pakistani girl accused of blasphemy). An early comment said Christianity has also been used to promote violence, e.g. the Crusades. Apparently that was also true of the most recent Iraq war, where W saw himself fulfilling biblical prophecy:

"Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East. Biblical prophecies are being fulfilled. This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase His people’s enemies before a new age begins"

Religion motivates and organizes people to do things they otherwise wouldn't, sometimes terrible things. Based on claims that cannot be proved, it lends itself to division and violence. Even on P.net I have noticed people who seem otherwise reasonable become totally unhinged when the subject is religion; they subordinate the Constitution to their preferred preacher, call the founders of the Republic (who prohibited the Congress from passing any law respecting an establishment of religion) "scumbags," and say that disagreeing with their preacher is like slitting their throats. The paradox is, they claim to believe in an omnipotent god, yet they act as if he/she/it needs their help all the time. They seem unable or unwilling to understand that no omnipotent god can ever need their help. While Islam seems to be the locus of most religious violence currently, Muslims are only acting out primal behaviors best shown in the opening scenes of 2001: their preachers have discovered a tool to cause violence and gain power for themselves, just as other preachers have also discovered.

Maybe move this to the Religion section?

I read through a lot of this. Will humanity blow itself up?

Anyone remember "The End of the World Cartoon"? ;-)

Looks like the "Religion of Peace" has directly inspired the murder of innocent people at random yet again (Boston this time), so it's time to bump this thread back to the top.

Please copy and paste the original text from http://www.faithfreedom.org/ to other blogs, especially in Arabic if you can do the translation.

All religious people should be viewed with suspicion and fear. They cannot be trusted to be humane to others because they are delusional.

Chechens have longstanding beef with russians as such it was somewhat surprising that they chose to attack america. America never done anything to them directly or indirectly.

I hope they mail the boy's head to his father, judging by his tone, he knew what they were up to.

Looks like INS really screwed up this one. Those guys should not have been admitted to the country.

Looks like INS really screwed up this one. Those guys should not have been admitted to the country.

The NYTimes is reporting they moved here in 2003. That would mean they were 9 and 16. How would the then-INS know what would transpire ten years later?

Nor did one brother have trouble hanging out with people and making friends:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/36525/tamerlan-tsarnaev-girlfriend-who-is-the-beautiful-girl-with-the-boston-bomber

We need to start charging clerics as accessories to crimes, if they explicitly endorse violence from their pulpit. Or at least seize their church's assets.

More here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10007007/Tamerlan-Tsarnaev-Boston-bomb-suspect-profile.html

Heavyweight Champion, best boxer in Boston, wanted him to represent Boston in various sporting events.

What did that guy say about entrails and priests?

thunderlips11 says

Nor did one brother have trouble hanging out with people and making friends:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/36525/tamerlan-tsarnaev-girlfriend-who-is-the-beautiful-girl-with-the-boston-bomber

Well, that idiot won't be spending any time with girlfriends anymore. He'll have plenty of time for regret during the next 60+ years in jail.

thunderlips11 says

We need to start charging clerics as accessories to crimes, if they explicitly endorse violence from their pulpit. Or at least seize their church's assets.

Careful now...we would have to word that law so it does not accidentally snare real Americans like Michael Savage and Glenn Beck.

leo707 says

thunderlips11 says

We need to start charging clerics as accessories to crimes, if they explicitly endorse violence from their pulpit. Or at least seize their church's assets.

Careful now...we would have to word that law so it does not accidentally snare real Americans like Michael Savage and Glenn Beck.

Actually, I would be more concerned about such, even well-intended, laws ensnaring people like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jr., and anyone else who "rocked the boat".

There's also still some truth in the mantra:
The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.

I think all Americans need to have a rebellious streak in them. It's good for the country.

Dan8267 says

Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jr....

Your list reminded me of something I'd been thinking lately. To my knowledge, no one like that has ever achieved any progress in a Muslim country. The whole model of peaceful protest and non-violent civil disobedience seems totally alien to them. The whole tradition, from Gandhi through MLK and Malcolm X and Abbie Hoffman, doesn't seem to exist in Muslim countries. Similarly, no Muslim country has same-sex marriage. Basically those countries operate on the model of the poster showing conventional logic vs religious logic, i.e. either you do "voluntarily" whatever they tell you - based on their particular (mis)reading of the Koran and Sharia - or they force you. Even Malcolm X, who converted to Islam, was killed by his fellow "Nation of Islam" Muslims.

There was a time when the Islamic world was more advanced than the Europe and embraced mathematics. It took a turn for the worse when the "Islamic right" took over and decided that religious teachings were more important than science, art, and mathematics. Thankfully, that could never happen in America.

Good riddance to all religions but Islam can go first.

Dan8267 says

There was a time when the Islamic world was more advanced than the Europe and embraced mathematics. It took a turn for the worse when the "Islamic right" took over and decided that religious teachings were more important than science, art, and mathematics. Thankfully, that could never happen in America.

I wonder if they had a bogus "critical shortage" of STEM employees too...