This year, I’ll be brief:
(With thanks to Non Credo Deus)
Tag Archive for 'violence'
Isn’t this absolutely disgusting?
From the article:
‘If somebody has to attack by strapping bombs to his body to protect the honour of the Prophet, then it is justified,’ Pakistani Religious Affairs Minister Ijaz-ul-Haq told the national assembly.
and:
‘If someone blows himself up he will consider himself justified. How can we fight terrorism when those who commit blasphemy are rewarded by the West?’ he said.
and, of course:
Dozens of students from hardline Islamic schools in the central Pakistani city of Multan chanted ‘Death to Rushdie, death to Britain’ and set a British flag on fire, witnesses said.
EDIT: PZ Myers comments on this as well.
Five years ago today, something terrible happened. Without warning, thousands of innocents were killed by a terrorist attack, which changed the world… for the worse.
Even though I’m not American, I remember feeling shocked and horrified that day. Things like that simply didn’t happen in a civilized world… or did they? And all those deaths. It was something dreadful, and anyone who says that America “deserved it” - whether it’s other terrorists, fundamentalist Muslim leaders, or Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson - is a moronic, disgusting human being.
Yet, to a group of people, it was the best thing that could have happened.
What’s changed since 2001?
People remain paranoid about terrorist attacks. People believe that terrorists may strike at any moment - much like the climate of nuclear fear in the 1950s.
America is more nationalist than ever, up to a “my country, right or wrong” point; anyone who says the United States may have acted wrongly is a “pinko commie liberal traitor”, or something like that.
The world economy is worse than it was in many decades. In the 90s everything grew, in the 2000s everything shrank. Things are still so bad that many people believe that employers do employees a favor by employing them, instead of it being a fair trade which benefits both sides, as any employment should be.
America is more religious and fundamentalist than ever. Many attempts against science have been made by religious groups, for religious purposes. Stem cell research and abortions are fundamentally “evil”, but a brain dead woman must be kept alive at all costs. Separation between church and state is increasingly becoming a myth, and the Constitution is constantly spat on by lying politicians who insist that “America was founded on Christian principles”. And no, it wasn’t.
By assuming a state of “perpetual war” against a concept such as “terror”, instead of a tangible enemy, a war which has already lasted longer than the US’s involvement in WWII, the government has successfully obtained “carte blanche” to do just about anything it wants. After all, in times of war, it’s “traitorous” and “unpatriotic” to criticize the government or the president. They say so, and people believe it. The president actually becomes above the law. Gee, why not be at war at all times, then? Which, of course, is exactly the case today.
The P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act. Illegal wiretapping. Arrests and imprisonment without trial. Secret prisons. Torture. Need I go on about the huge loss of freedom? And yet they say they’re fighting for it…
A couple of wars have been started, and at least one of them was based on lies, greed for oil, and the “be in a permanent state of war” absolute power that I mentioned above. A lot of people were fooled by those lies, and whoever wasn’t was, again, branded “a traitor” and “unpatriotic”. Or “a liberal”, or “an appeaser”, or…
Before, he was an unpopular president who had “won” an election in uncertain terms, and had his “victory” handed out to him by a court. But George W. Bush, in a couple of hours, became a “hero” and a “savior”, the “defender of the land of the free”. And won the next election, which would never have happened if Americans were judging him for the state of the economy, the conditions of living, and so on. Hmm, I bet he was really sad when 9/11 happened…
The rest of the world isn’t much better. By not standing up to the United States’ policies, both the EU and the UN lost most of their credibility. Almost everyone outside the US knew that the stated reasons for the Iraq war were obvious lies, and yet nobody had the courage to do a thing about it.
In short, the world is now much worse than it was.
Blame the terrorists first? Sure. Note that I haven’t mentioned any of the theories that say that the Bush administration knew about 9/11 and let it happen, or actually did it. It’s certainly possible - they’re the ones who benefitted by it the most - but I don’t know enough to make any accusations about it. So I won’t.
What I know is that they’re responsible for what happened afterwards. The climate of terror, the loss of civil liberties, the wars, the religious fundamentalism, the international bullying, the “either you’re with us or against us - and therefore a traitor” attitude… I blame Bush and everyone around him for that.
I don’t know about you, but if I had lost someone in 9/11, I’d despise anyone who used my pain for his own gains. Even if he was the president.
From Herald Sun:
Muslim clerics are demanding an Afghan man on trial for converting from Islam to Christianity be executed
and:
Clerics have warned that if the Afghan Government caves into Western pressure and frees him, they will urge people to “pull him into pieces”.
and, of course:
“Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die.”
Apparently, George W. Bush is “angered”. It is a start… but would he be angered if the man, instead of moving from one superstition to another (which happens to be the same as his), had become an atheist? I doubt it. I bet he’d believe, instead, that “the godless heathen had it coming for insulting religion”.
If you don’t speak Portuguese, you probably won’t understand this news article, but it’s like this: a group of minors, between 10 and 15 years old, have just murdered a homeless man, in Oporto, Portugal. Apparently, they stoned and kicked him to death.
Surprisingly, not much has been said yet (though I admit I don’t watch TV or listen to radio, I only read news sites), other than a couple of politicians saying “I’m shocked!”. But, having lived in Portugal all my life, I can easily see where this is going. Politicians here, who sometimes remind me of Atlas Shrugged villains, are probably going to say that the kids are minors according to the law, that they aren’t responsible for their actions, that they are the true victims, that this is all society’s fault, that they can’t possibly be seen, or treated, as criminals, that all children are innocent, that this or that is to blame, and so on. In other words, collectivism, and the denial of that bothersome thing called “personal responsibility”.
I can bet that no one among them will be punished in any way. I really, really hope I am wrong… but I’ve seen how justice works here.
Me, my belief is this: by commiting murder (and it’s murder, make no mistakes), they lost the right to be treated as “innocent” children. By acting like adults, and doing one of the worst things an adult can do (killing an innocent, just for fun), they should be treated as adults, and punished as such.
What do you people think? Should their young age make a difference here?
As I said in the previous post, I have my reasons for speaking more against Christianity than against other religions, as it’s the one I “see” around me. But, in a way, Islam is even worse (and I am grateful that there are very, very few Muslims in my country).
Islam’s apologists say that it’s “a religion of peace”. The Martian has a great post refuting that, so I won’t repeat those arguments here - just read his post.
What I want to add is this: some people say it’s just the “extremists” that commit acts of fanatical violence and terrorism, and that “true” Islam isn’t like that. But… what’s true Islam? It should be what’s in the Koran, right?
If so, here’s what the Koran has to say about violence. And here’s what the Koran says about (in)tolerance.
“Religion of peace”? Maybe in the sense of “we’ll kill anyone who disagrees with us, then we’ll have peace”.
This is the best article about the subject matter I’ve read, so far:
Inside the Mind of a Censor: Five Reasons Jack Thompson is Right
(hint: the title is provocative, but the article isn’t what it suggests)
In the state of Michigan, U.S.A, apparently a law forbidding the sale of “mature” (you know, what in a movie means PG, but in a game means M or even AO) games to minors passed. Even though it’s unconstitutional.
But, surprisingly, the video games industry is fighting back. For a change. About time, IMO.
Pat Robertson now: “Wait a minute, I didn’t say ‘assassination’. I said our special forces could take him out. Take him out could be a number of things, including kidnapping.”
Riiiight…
Pat Robertson a couple of days ago: “If he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it.”
Tough luck, Pat. Video recording is a wonderful thing.
Thinking about the current events with that madman Pat Robertson (see below) made me realize one other thing: that there is a reason why probably nothing will happen to him.
Religious violence, even in this “enlightened” age, is still very much around. You’ve probably heard about attacks on abortion clinics. But religions also fight among themselves - sometimes even among sub-sets (or sub-sects?) of the same religion. Lynchings, bombings and so on are common, and not only in Arab countries or in Ireland.
But… have you ever heard about religion-related violence by non-religious people? (note the “religion-related”). Have you ever heard of a “fanatical atheistic” group bombing churches or kidnapping / killing priests? Or, to put it in another way: it’s common to be a target of violence for having the “wrong” religion at a particular time and place, but it’s not common to be attacked for having a religion, by non-religious people.
Why? Because these same non-religious people tend not to be fanatics. They tend to think that one’s beliefs are his own choice, and not a reason to hurt anyone.
That’s why there probably won’t be any violence against a guy who wants to kill a democratically elected president for religious (and political, of course) reasons. He’s probably safe… because his opponents are a lot better than he is.
Technorati tags: Pat Robertson
Subscribe to this blog
Recent Comments