Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Jihadin wrote:
In a nutshell.
Where exactly is this thread currently at?

Man I have no idea.

 jasper76 wrote:
As regards the thread subject, here is another opinion piece opposing Harris and Maher's views. This is from Fareed Zakaria, probably a more honest person than this Aslan guy, certainly a less pompous one.

Sorry for not pasting the article text, but I'm currently on my mobile:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-islam-has-a-problem-right-now-but-heres-why-bill-maher-is-wrong/2014/10/09/b6302a14-4fe6-11e4-aa5e-7153e466a02d_story.html?tid=HP_opinion

I totally disagree with his conclusion:

That is not how Christianity moved from its centuries-long embrace of violence, crusades, inquisitions, witch-burning and intolerance to its modern state.

Damn well, it is! Christianity was not beaten into submission by people that were praising its positive aspects and “giving devout Christians reasons to be proud”. It was changed by violent and repeated attacks on the awful or ridiculous part of it, until Christians were too ashamed and defensive to be self-righteous and base their opinion on scripture anymore.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
The author Philip Jenkins talks about something called "holy amnesia" whereas a religion matures and adjusts over time to move past its violent roots (something all Abrahamic faiths share in their history) and I think there is some truth behind that.

I say this is bullcrap. There is just no correlation between the time since creation and the level of violence of “Abrahamic” religions. Just draw the chart and check for yourself. Do not forget to add Bahaism on the chart. And, even though arguably not Abrahamic, other monotheistic religions like Sikh and Zoroastrianism.
And that is not even mentioning how Islam did the exact opposite of the described process during the last century, coming back to its violent roots.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
In every "argument" (and I use that very loosely here) you make, you seem patently unaware of how things actual work in other countries, and specifically the United States.

Yep, totally sure you are much more aware of how things work in France than I am of how things works in the U.S.
But oh wait, I forgot, half of Dakka OT takes this song a bit too much literally. Why the hell do you believe I should have to look up to examples in the U.S. when I can point to examples in France and leave you the very easy work to think of similar event happening in the U.S.? Especially since France is really way less tolerant on religion than the U.S. anyway, so finding similar or better anecdotes from the U.S. should be pretty damn easy.
I mean, FFS, you did not even bother to check if you could just change France with U.S. and the argument would still work. Spoiler, yes it does! So now that it has been established that I apparently know more about how things work in your goddamn country than you do, can you just stop talking non-sense already?

Humane slaughter has nothing to do with oppressed human rights, which is the primary topic here, so it is a moot point. But because you are, I'd like to point out this fairly important line: "or any other religious faith that prescribes a method of slaughter hereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain caused by the simultaneous and instantaneous severance of the carotid arteries with a sharp instrument and handling in connection with such slaughtering."

So, and I'll make this simple for you, if your ritual involves dismembering the animal and keeping it alive first before you kill it, it's still illegal. Dhabihah, the Islamic method for ritual slaughter, involves cutting the throat specifically to cause the least amount of suffering. Shechita , the Jewish form, is the exact same way. In Judaism, there are even forbidden tenets of how you slaughter livestock, and almost all deal with lessening the pain of the animal.

So again, if their form of slaughter involved being cruel to the animal or torturing the anmial, it would be illegal.

But again, that's not even the point of this thread, so it's moot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
And, even though arguably not Abrahamic, other monotheistic religions like Sikh and Zoroastrianism.

There's no "arguably" to be had here. They're not Abrahamic.

 cincydooley wrote:
Humane slaughter has nothing to do with oppressed human rights, which is the primary topic here, so it is a moot point.

So, uh, why did you not say so when I used the example about France? Was it because you had no idea how it worked in France? Damn hypocrite.

 cincydooley wrote:
But because you are, I'd like to point out this fairly important line: "or any other religious faith that prescribes a method of slaughter hereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain caused by the simultaneous and instantaneous severance of the carotid arteries with a sharp instrument and handling in connection with such slaughtering."

So, yeah, this all about setting an exception for religious faith, and only for religious faith. While telling us about how those are not cruel, how cute! Totally the reason it is allowed (but only for religious faith ).

 Ouze wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
In a nutshell.
Where exactly is this thread currently at?

Man I have no idea.

That Bill and Sam were guilty on a few occasions of "gross generalization".
Ben was all fired up and was on the attack before anything came our of anyone's mouth.
There was little room for "honest" discussion when people's character is attacked rather than their views or ideas.

The show gave the initial impression Liberals had proclaimed a Jihad on Muslims. Fine entertainment.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Humane slaughter has nothing to do with oppressed human rights, which is the primary topic here, so it is a moot point.

So, uh, why did you not say so when I used the example about France? Was it because you had no idea how it worked in France? Damn hypocrite.

You mean like I already did on page 6?

 cincydooley wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Do you care to elucidate your opinion?

Okay, let me put it this way. There are laws in France that dictate how animals should be slaughtered, to avoid unnecessary pain. But then the Jews and Muslims have special permission to not follow them because of “freedom of religion”. I say this is a very good case about “freedom of religion” being something very, very wrong. You should not be exempted from following laws because you believe some omnipotent entity decided for you what is wrong and what is right and therefore every should accommodate your rules. You are free to believe in whatever you want, you are free to pray, you are free to express your beliefs… and anything else beyond that is in no way some right you are innately entitled to, but something that will be allowed as long as there are no reasons to ban it.
The expression “freedom of religion” gives people the impression that as long as there is some religious justification between some practice, it is something they are entitled to be allowed to do. No. They are allowed to do it only if there is no reason to ban it, irregardless of religion.

Puhhhlleease.

The manner in which animals are killed has no bearing on this thread, whatsoever.

 cincydooley wrote:

So, yeah, this all about setting an exception for religious faith, and only for religious faith. While telling us about how those are not cruel, how cute! Totally the reason it is allowed (but only for religious faith ).

Cutting an animals throat isn't cruel. I'd argue it's less cruel than electrocuting it or attempting to bash it in the head killing it with one blow, the methods that the Human Slaughter Act actually sets aside as accepted practices, neither of which are even guaranteed to kill. Whereas rapid exsanguination and depriving the brain of oxygen are certainly guaranteed to.

So again, the religious are NOT exempt from the law in this instance.

 cincydooley wrote:
Cutting an animals throat isn't cruel. I'd argue it's less cruel than electrocuting it or attempting to bash it in the head killing it with one blow, the methods that the Human Slaughter Act actually sets aside as accepted practices, neither of which are even guaranteed to kill.

Then why are those put forward as the humane way to go when there is no religion involved, and throat-slitting is only mentioned for religious rituals? Because those that wrote the law do not agree, and they made that exception solely to protect “religious freedom”.
Also still waiting for an explanation on why I needed to quote the US law rather than the French law for you to stop saying your “You do not know how it is in other countries” stupid non-sense?


Slitting animals throat should not be considered a protected right. Being allowed everywhere covered from head to toe should not be a protected right. Cutting your babies genital parts should not be a protected right. Killing people that leave your faith should not be a protected right. The religious logic behind some act should not come into consideration when determining if that act should be allowed.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
And, even though arguably not Abrahamic, other monotheistic religions like Sikh and Zoroastrianism.

There's no "arguably" to be had here. They're not Abrahamic.

Yep.

I should put the holy amnesia in to better context, as Jenkins uses it specifically to describe the evolution of the Abrahmaic faiths because that is what he studies (Philip Jenkins is the Distinguished Professor or History at Baylor University and co-Director of Baylor's religious studies program).

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Cutting an animals throat isn't cruel. I'd argue it's less cruel than electrocuting it or attempting to bash it in the head killing it with one blow, the methods that the Human Slaughter Act actually sets aside as accepted practices, neither of which are even guaranteed to kill.

Then why are those put forward as the humane way to go when there is no religion involved, and throat-slitting is only mentioned for religious rituals? Because those that wrote the law do not agree, and they made that exception solely to protect “religious freedom”.

Because its messy and people in the US equate messy with cruel. Its the same reason you can shot and stab whomever you want in a movie, but you can't have blood on the weapons or leaving the body if you want to remain less than R.

Also still waiting for an explanation on why I needed to quote the US law rather than the French law for you to stop saying your “You do not know how it is in other countries” stupid non-sense?

Because everyone else has been talking about US religions freedoms and US Liberals. That's actually what the thread is about.

Slitting animals throat should not be considered a protected right.

So I shouldn't be allowed to raise and kill my own livestock? Or hunt?

Being allowed everywhere covered from head to toe should not be a protected right. Cutting your babies genital parts should not be a protected right.

Assuming the latter is regarding circumcision, I think you're wrong on both counts.

Killing people that leave your faith should not be a protected right. .

No one is claiming it should be.

Just slitting an animal's thought is not cruel. Unusual, but not cruel. Bludgeoning the animal to death, or stabbing it repeatedly is, however, because it causes undo pain.

It's pretty surreal to see so many folks saying slitting an animal's throat is not cruel.

I'm no vegetarian or anything, but come on.....slitting anybody's throat is cruel. Killing animals in general is cruel. You gotta eat to live, but let's not pretend that killing an animal for food is not cruel to the animal.

If you don't see the point, replace 'animal' with 'baby' and you'll find it.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Just slitting an animal's thought is not cruel. Unusual, but not cruel. Bludgeoning the animal to death, or stabbing it repeatedly is, however, because it causes undo pain.

If you can replace "animal" with "human" and it still not be cruel, then it is not cruel. Killing animals IS cruel, but it's delicious, so we justify it.

I can't wait for lunch in an hour, gonna go get a bacon hamburger. fething starving.

 daedalus wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Just slitting an animal's thought is not cruel. Unusual, but not cruel. Bludgeoning the animal to death, or stabbing it repeatedly is, however, because it causes undo pain.

If you can replace "animal" with "human" and it still not be cruel, then it is not cruel. Killing animals IS cruel, but it's delicious, so we justify it.

I can't wait for lunch in an hour, gonna go get a bacon hamburger. fething starving.

BACON!

Thanks daedalus... now I have to find a burger joint (Five Guys is too far).

Oh... BACON!

The reason it is not cruel is that cruelty is not the intent.

Where cruelty is involved, I'm afraid intent is irrelevant.

Killing an animal is not cruel. Cruelty is all about intent.

Ok... I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.

But you may want to look up cruelty in the dictionary. Intent really has nothing to do with whether an action is cruel or uncruel. In fact, the legal definition explicitly states that intent is irrelevqnt.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Killing an animal is not cruel. Cruelty is all about intent.

Killing a human is not cruel. Cruelty is all about intent.

 daedalus wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Killing an animal is not cruel. Cruelty is all about intent.

Killing a human is not cruel. Cruelty is all about intent.

Also true. A soldier is not cruel, a murderer is.

Fair enough then.

 jasper76 wrote:
Ok... I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.

But you may want to look up cruelty in the dictionary. Intent really has nothing to do with whether an action is cruel or uncruel. In fact, the legal definition explicitly states that intent is irrelevqnt.

cru·el (krl)
adj. cru·el·er or cru·el·ler, cru·el·est or cru·el·lest
1. Disposed to inflict pain or suffering.

I'm afraid I have to agree with Co'tor Shas on this one. Cruelty is specifically about intent to cause pain or suffering.

Now can we go back to the original topic, please.

I do now see that there is a definition that does involve intent.

Like many other words , cruelty has several meanings, so I won't get further into an argument of semantics.

And I admit I was wrong, or at least partially wrong, because cruelty also does have a definition that has nothing to do with intent.

In terms of butchering livestock, I don't think cruelty has as much to do with intent as it does with method. There are methods of killing that are extremely cruel, and methods that are more humane.

I don't consider slitting a livestock animal's throat to be cruel, but it's best to stun it first (such as with a bolt gun). I could see why someone would have a problem with it if the animal wasn't stunned first, and I wouldn't do it myself if the animal hadn't first been stunned.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Being allowed everywhere covered from head to toe should not be a protected right. Cutting your babies genital parts should not be a protected right.

Assuming the latter is regarding circumcision, I think you're wrong on both counts.

Killing people that leave your faith should not be a protected right. .

No one is claiming it should be.

For the first, I think Hybrid means religious clitoridectomies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoridectomy) and I agree with him

For the second I think he means apostasy in Islam being punishable by death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam) and I agree with him

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Being allowed everywhere covered from head to toe should not be a protected right. Cutting your babies genital parts should not be a protected right.

Assuming the latter is regarding circumcision, I think you're wrong on both counts.

Killing people that leave your faith should not be a protected right. .

No one is claiming it should be.

For the first, I think Hybrid means religious clitoridectomies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoridectomy) and I agree with him

For the second I think he means apostasy in Islam being punishable by death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam) and I agree with him

Neither of which are protected rights in any of the countries we've been using as examples of religious freedom.

 cincydooley wrote:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Being allowed everywhere covered from head to toe should not be a protected right. Cutting your babies genital parts should not be a protected right.

Assuming the latter is regarding circumcision, I think you're wrong on both counts.

Killing people that leave your faith should not be a protected right. .

No one is claiming it should be.

For the first, I think Hybrid means religious clitoridectomies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoridectomy) and I agree with him

For the second I think he means apostasy in Islam being punishable by death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam) and I agree with him

Neither of which are protected rights in any of the countries we've been using as examples of religious freedom.

That's true - but I think he was giving his views in general.

Unless I'm wrong, which is very possible.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Also, incompatible =/= bad; a distinction you are failing to understand in your increasingly comical attempt to get me to contradict myself.

No, it doesn't. But if you're saying that a particular religion is not compatible with an ideology you ascribe to, it is almost certain you believe it to be bad.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
That "series of collected opinions" is empirical evidence that that myself and others used to show that the current doctrine of Islam is incompatible with liberalism. It is a conclusion based on hard numbers, but please, keep trying to prove otherwise.

I never said your numbers weren't empirical, but any conclusion based on the interpretation of those numbers is not.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Oh it does, does it? Gee whiz, I don't know what I would have done without your vast insight on liberalism (or as I like to call it, "looking on Wikipedia"). So bringing up the fact that liberalism "dates back to ancient Greece" has to do with what again? Remind me again, what exactly is your point?

I studied politics and philosophy for nearly a decade. I have referenced the internet from time to time, but referencing sources is what honest scholars do; even if a citation isn't made.

Anyway, in Ancient Greece universal human rights were not a thing. Indeed, many of the key thinkers who underpin liberalism specifically differentiated between being a Greek citizen, and being a barbarian.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Oh yes, my friend, I know exactly what you were referring too... And I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence of your ridiculous claim.

Then why did you attempt to counter my argument by isolating persons by nationality and humanity while asking a question?

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Average American? Average European? Average human? Please, define "average person."

Anyway, I don't believe the average person believes that humans have universal rights because I don't believe that an average person is capable of agreeing with another average person regarding who is a human, and what their rights are. This can easily be demonstrated by way of arguments made by people regarding Christianity, Islam, China, Russia, North Korea, any number of African or Middle Eastern countries, the US, Japan, Mexico, etc.

 jasper76 wrote:
Out of pure curiosity, which famous people are you referring to?

I missed this, apologies.

I was referring to Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, Stenger, and Myers.

I would agree with Hybrid that Religion should not be taken into account when laws are made.

I would also say that circumcision of a baby without medical need is pretty much genital mutilation.

How about you let them grow up, indoctrinate them first before you make physical changes to their body?

Like Islam does?

Anyway, how are you going to make laws without taking into account religion. It is something that huge numbers of people believe is an important part of life, it cannot be ignored any more than other aspects of people's beliefs.

Ask the reasoning. If it's religious, pat them on the head and send them on their way.