Ground Zero Mosque

[KrazyGlue]

Well, sure. That's true.

But it's not really our decision, and it bothers me that a lot of people called them "stupid", "idiots" or just not "smart". Really? Is it really stupid to continue to nonviolently oppose your oppressors through the continued exercise of the rights they would deny you?

Sure, it might get the Mosque burned down. Maybe you'll even get killed. But surely, for actions where you risk yourself for the benefit of others, "brave" is a better adjective than "stupid".

Right, I completely agree with you as I stated before. I'm just disagreeing with Reaver that there's nothing to debate about. While it's ridiculous to challenge the idea that they have a right to build the mosque, it's reasonable to raise questions about whether it's the right course of action for the Muslims in america to fight bigotry. While I personally think it is in fact the right way to go about it, it's not set in stone like the question of whether they have a right to do so.

 

[Sucumbio]

Nothing you have presented has given any indication that the tactic of an oppressed group shrinking back into their shells has ever worked, yet you continue to present it as the optimal course of events.

Honestly it's a fear of the outcome. We won't know unless they do it. Like I said previously, it's a lose lose situation. Build it, and you risk vandalism or worse. Build it not, and you risk further embitterment.

Your continued rationalization of those positions is something that bothers me.

Yeah, just to be clear I was presenting the protester's argument because for whatever reason I felt as if their side of the issue wasn't being properly represented in this debate, and if we're all just going to agree from the get go, there's little to debate. I also wanted it made perfectly clear what their stance is, and why it's so ludicrous. Though you, EE and few others do your homework and don't need this helping hand, we've got a lot of new debaters recently, and despite best efforts, can have a tendency to dumb down issues, and formulating opinions too quickly.

What Muslims need to do is engage in a peaceful opposition, as they are doing, which both demonstrates that they will not be pushed around, and that there is nothing about them to be scared of.

That is the solution, and although it may cause some problems in the short term, it is the only long term solution.

Nail on the head right here. This is precisely my stake in this debate. IS it "some problems" in the short term? Or is this decision a potential catalyst which could spiral into a long term nightmare? My fear of this turning out bad may just be the pessimist in me, I'll grant that. And it does infuriate me that anyone would actually ask someone else to forgo their constitutional rights. I guess we'll just have to wait and see, but if the **** goes down I won't say 'I told you so.'

 

[KrazyGlue]

But like I've said, if the bigots launch a violent attack on the mosque, that will become a huge media story and the bigots will be portrayed as they should be: ignorant and brutish. And ultimately, I think that would help fight Islamaphobia in the long term, as more and more people realize that being bigoted towards people just due to their religion is really evil.

 

[Reaver197]

An interesting video on the situation I watched from Thunderfoot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQE4orNMDAw&feature=channel

It does raise an interesting point in which, yes, there are people who are bigoted against muslims and the practicing of their faith, but, yet, at the same time, as part of their faith, muslims must pray to a holy site that is mandated to be bigoted and discriminatory against non-muslims.

Also, this video leaves something else to consider about Islam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnEeTBuPQuo

Something to chew on and debate over.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I'm sorry, but this Thunderfoot character is a shameless bigot. Glad you brought it up, because I'd like to address some of his points.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQE4orNMDAw&feature=channel

It does raise an interesting point in which, yes, there are people who are bigoted against muslims and the practicing of their faith, but, yet, at the same time, as part of their faith, muslims must pray to a holy site that is mandated to be bigoted and discriminatory against non-muslims.

I'm going to analyze this video in the order in which he makes his points.

He starts off by saying they have the right to build the Mosque. Okay, so we agree.

Then, he compares them to people who go to the funerals of dead gays holding signs saying they will burn in hell. He directly calls the Muslims "jerks", failing to understand that moderate Muslims are not at all responsible for the attack. Moreover, he fails to understand their motive, which is to fight bigotry and ignorance, not to be "jerks".

He then speaks about reciprocation, and that if some fundamentalist Christians flew a plane into the Kaaba, they wouldn't be able to build a church a few blocks away, especially since nobody but Muslims can even enter Mecca (with rare exceptions). As for Mecca being religiously segregated, that is due to the Saudi government making it that way, not the religion. They take a verse from the Qur'an and use it as an excuse. The Qur'an never says "O you who do not follow Islam, begone from the holy land" or anything explicit like that, but the Saudi government interpreted it that way. So that invalidates his claims about Islam being all about exclusion. That's not true anyway, as Islam explicitly states that anyone who believes in a single, all-powerful God (Christianity, Judaism, Sabians) are all People of the Book and says that tolerance and autonomy should be granted to them. Furthermore his analogy is faulty, because that would be a direct Christian attack on Islam, which is not what the 9/11 terrorists did. They did not fly into the Vatican, so there isn't a comparison.

Also, this video leaves something else to consider about Islam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnEeTBuPQuo

Something to chew on and debate over.

Let's first look at his logic:
"Islam takes of a higher percentage of society than the percentage of scientific papers it produces, therefore it is detrimental to society." I hope everyone can clearly see why this is horrible logic.

Secondly, he fails to recognize that education and scientific opportunities are often much less plentiful/available in many Islamic countries than in the more industrialized Christian and secular countries.

And he also neglects to discuss any cultural, philosophical, and artistic influences the religion has. He proves in this video that he is an ignorant bigot who oversimplifies things and manipulates facts to twist the minds of his viewers.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

He then speaks about reciprocation, and that if some fundamentalist Christians flew a plane into the Kaaba, they wouldn't be able to build a church a few blocks away, especially since nobody but Muslims can even enter Mecca (with rare exceptions). As for Mecca being religiously segregated, that is due to the Saudi government making it that way, not the religion. They take a verse from the Qur'an and use it as an excuse. The Qur'an never says "O you who do not follow Islam, begone from the holy land" or anything explicit like that, but the Saudi government interpreted it that way. So that invalidates his claims about Islam being all about exclusion. That's not true anyway, as Islam explicitly states that anyone who believes in a single, all-powerful God (Christianity, Judaism, Sabians) are all People of the Book and says that tolerance and autonomy should be granted to them. Furthermore his analogy is faulty, because that would be a direct Christian attack on Islam, which is not what the 9/11 terrorists did. They did not fly into the Vatican, so there isn't a comparison.

Incidentally, Saudi Arabia is an Islamic state under sharia law, which is Islamic Law. That's probably why Non-Muslims can't get into Mecca. So in effect, it's Islam which is creating this law.

Here's what the Quaran says:

O you who believe! the idolaters are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year; and if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing Wise.

So basically, anyone who depicts their god as an image in anyway is not allowed in. This has been extended to everyone except Muslims. Discriminatory: Yes, because of Islam.

Thunderfoot is basically saying that because of this: he won't be lectured about religious tolerance from people who pray to a symbol of discrimination. Which is in my mind not too stupid a position to take up. I can identify with that.

The point is that, we still should be tolerant, because it's the right thing to do, and so should they. They, however, pray to a symbol of discrimination, so it sounds a little hypocritical coming from them if they're saying we're not tolerant of other religions, unless they believe that anyone should be able to enter Mecca.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Incidentally, Saudi Arabia is an Islamic state under sharia law, which is Islamic Law. That's probably why Non-Muslims can't get into Mecca. So in effect, it's Islam which is creating this law.

Here's what the Quaran says:


So basically, anyone who depicts their god as an image in anyway is not allowed in. This has been extended to everyone except Muslims. Discriminatory: Yes, because of Islam.

Right, that's the way the government has interpreted it. First of all, from what is in that passage, all people of the book should be allowed to go, which is being denied. Furthermore, it says to not approach the mosque, not to lock up the entire city.

Thunderfoot is basically saying that because of this: he won't be lectured about religious tolerance from people who pray to a symbol of discrimination. Which is in my mind not too stupid a position to take up. I can identify with that.

The point is that, we still should be tolerant, because it's the right thing to do, and so should they. They, however, pray to a symbol of discrimination, so it sounds a little hypocritical coming from them if they're saying we're not tolerant of other religions, unless they believe that anyone should be able to enter Mecca.

They're not being intolerant, they just believe it's a sacred area that should be reserved for people who actually believe in and follow the Islamic religion. And again, it's really the Saudi government that segregates the city.

Ironically, while Thunderfoot is preaching religious tolerance in the first video, in the second video he explicitly states his belief that we should reduce the amount of people following Islam in order to benefit society.

EDIT: Should have stated this earlier, but I do think the Mecca point was actually reasonable. So I agree with Bob that it isn't stupid. But other than this point, he pretty much fails with everything else. He's clearly not dumb, but he leaves out important information and makes illogical conclusions generally speaking. The first video made one decent point (the Mecca one), but the second video was just really dumb and bigoted.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

EDIT: Should have stated this earlier, but I do think the Mecca point was actually reasonable. So I agree with Bob that it isn't stupid. But other than this point, he pretty much fails with everything else. He's clearly not dumb, but he leaves out important information and makes illogical conclusions generally speaking. The first video made one decent point (the Mecca one), but the second video was just really dumb and bigoted.

Yeah, I just watched the 2nd video. And yeah, it felt really silly. I know he's better than that.

 

[rvkevin]

Here's the third.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwGZODG75kM

What exactly are the criticisms leveled against him?

 

[Sucumbio]

^ Everything KG said in post #45... basically, concluding he's misguided and bigoted. Do you disagree? (I have not watched the vids myself).

 

[thegreatkazoo]

^ Everything KG said in post #45... basically, concluding he's misguided and bigoted. Do you disagree? (I have not watched the vids myself).

He cleared up his points a lot more on his current video, so I've no complaints.

 

[El Nino]

@Thunderfoot vids:

I didn't get through all of them. The fact is, no discussion happens in a vacuum. At this point in time, this particular religion isn't just a religion. The moment a political group takes up an ideology as its banner, the public discussion surrounding that ideology changes.

He seems to criticize all religions, but he still considers the community center to be offensive, and in order for that argument to stand, you'd have to accept the association between this religion and terrorism. Without that association, it would not be offensive.

The fundamentalists are banking on that association. And they would like to see this project fail, not because it would be detrimental to the U.S., but because it would be a major blow to the moderate Muslims and any proponents of peaceful Islam.

I don't think anyone else has mentioned it, but more Muslims have died at the hands of Islamic fundamentalists than any other group anywhere in the world. Fundamentalists are most active in areas where the prominent religion is already Islam. The people who are building this community center are fighting their own battle against that faction. And now they have to fight on two fronts, against two different brands of extremists.

 

[KrazyGlue]

^ Good points, El Nino.

Here's the third.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwGZODG75kM

What exactly are the criticisms leveled against him?

This video was better in the two minutes I watched it (sorry, school starts tomorrow so I couldn't watch all 13 minutes).

But please, if you would all watch the second video Reaver posted (only 1:40), you'll see he's very bigoted in it and uses quite awful logic. And yeah, it would be nice if everyone could spend two minutes watching the second video, because then you'll all see what I'm talking about.

 

[rvkevin]

But please, if you would all watch the second video Reaver posted (only 1:40), you'll see he's very bigoted in it and uses quite awful logic. And yeah, it would be nice if everyone could spend two minutes watching the second video, because then you'll all see what I'm talking about.

I've seen it. I didn't have a problem with it the first time I saw it, and I don't have a problem with it now. I don't know how one would establish him being bigoted by anything he said in that video.

Let's first look at his logic:
"Islam takes of a higher percentage of society than the percentage of scientific papers it produces, therefore it is detrimental to society." I hope everyone can clearly see why this is horrible logic.

Lets try to be a little more charitable of his views. Islam, as currently practiced, diminishes scientific inquiry, resulting in a significantly lower number of scientific publications relative to their population, which is the proxy measure for the growth of knowledge. Without such diminishes to science, our knowledge would have been greater than without such features of Islam, which would have resulted in higher higher measures of society well-being. Where is the flaw? How does this qualify as bigoted?

"Obviously, the world will be a better place in 50 years if this anti-science attribute of the religion is either diminished or the number of people practicing the religion is diminished" Where is the flaw? Similarly, it could be stated as, obviously, the world would be a better place in 50 years if this anti-science attribute of the organization is either diminished or the number of people participating in the organization is decreased. Seems reasonable to me.

 

[KrazyGlue]

First of all:

Secondly, he fails to recognize that education and scientific opportunities are often much less plentiful/available in many Islamic countries than in the more industrialized Christian and secular countries.

And he also neglects to discuss any cultural, philosophical, and artistic influences the religion has.

Also, sorry, but what about Islam diminishes scientific inquiry that isn't already in any other religion? I just don't know of anything in particular.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Also, sorry, but what about Islam diminishes scientific inquiry that isn't already in any other religion? I just don't know of anything in particular.

He mentioned in his video that when Islam became more fundamental in its belief system (around the time of the Renaissance), the *********** of scientific inquiry began.

It's shown midway on the third video.

 

[rvkevin]

Secondly, he fails to recognize that education and scientific opportunities are often much less plentiful/available in many Islamic countries than in the more industrialized Christian and secular countries.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vrpPPV_yPY (~22:00-27:00)

Do you really think that 300 years of scientific progress followed by 800 years of scientific ineptness is really explained by economic factors?

Also, sorry, but what about Islam diminishes scientific inquiry that isn't already in any other religion? I just don't know of anything in particular.

It is not about the difference in the content of their holy books (mainly comparing to Christianity), it is about the difference in the practice/interpretation of their holy book. For one:

"According to popular interpretations of Islam, Muslims are not free to change religion or become an atheist: denying Islam and thus becoming an apostate is traditionally punished by death in men and by life imprisonment in women, though in only three Islamic countries is apostasy currently subject to capital punishment. Since an apostate can be considered a Muslim whose beliefs cast doubt on the Divine, and/or Koran, claims of atheism and apostasy have been made against Muslim scholars and political opponents throughout history."-wiki

Do you really think that this is not detrimental to scientific inquiry. Merely asking the question "What if God did not create humans, but humans arrived via natural processes?" would be prohibited. Right there, the foundation of biology is off-limits. What if God did not create the cosmos? What if God did not...The inability to ask questions inhibits the ability to investigate those questions, which is essential for scientific progress.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Again, all of the things you mentioned there are caused by figures in Islam (as shown in the video) planting ideas of science being evil into the minds of its followers. It has nothing to do with the religion itself.There is no "anti-science attribute". Now, if he were to say that Muslims have been misled in modern times as to the significance of science, that would be much more accurate. And to even suggest that lowering the amount of people in the religion would benefit society is pure bigotry.

Moreover, both you and he have not addressed the cultural, philosophical, and artistic value of the religion.

 

[rvkevin]

Again, all of the things you mentioned there are caused by figures in Islam (as shown in the video) planting ideas of science being evil into the minds of its followers. It has nothing to do with the religion itself.There is no "anti-science attribute".

I'm quite confused here. You say that the followers of a particular religion have been misled by their authority figures, yet that has nothing to do with the religion. What are you considering the religion? The original texts? If so, notice the caveat; Islam, as currently practiced, diminishes scientific inquiry. On second thought, it should be "as currently popularly practiced," but that's irrelevant to this point. The issue is the current interpretation and practice thereof. This is why religious leaders interpreting religious texts, disseminating information to the followers of that religion, who then act on that information has everything to do with religion. If this has nothing to do with religion, then I have no idea in what sense you are using the term.

And to even suggest that lowering the amount of people in the religion would benefit society is pure bigotry.

Please explain why. Would it be similarly bigoted to suggest that lowering the amount of people who practice Scientology would benefit society? Would it be similarly bigoted to suggest that lowering the amount of people who reject many scientific fields such as geology, biology, cosmology, etc. in order to believe in young Earth Creationism would benefit society?

This is where realizing strict concepts of religion are important. Take for example, the Christian who attends church once a month, and the only thing in the bible he believes is that Jesus will save his soul. Now, contrast that person with someone who believes the bible is inerrant. Do they adhere to the same religion? I contend that they do not. The same could be said of the liberal Christian as compared to a cultural Christian. Even though all three individuals may self-identify as a Christian, the above criticism would not apply to all three since it is specifically directed to a particular subset of Christianity. In this sense, the terms Christianity and Islam are somewhat ambiguous since they can be used as umbrella terms for many different religions or for a specific subset of religious claims. Failing to realize this can lead to accusations of over generalizations when no such have been made. Here, I am using the term to refer to a specific subset of claims. So, with that in mind, why is it bigoted?

Moreover, both you and he have not addressed the cultural, philosophical, and artistic value of the religion.

What is the cultural value of religion? What is the artistic value of religion? What is the philosophical value of religion? I don't find many redeeming qualities in religion. Perhaps you could explain what they are.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Moreover, both you and he have not addressed the cultural, philosophical, and artistic value of the religion.

You're saying that Islam has cultural value. Sure, Islamic art may be nice. But, you're talking about a culture, in it's "purest form", stones people to death, kills people for adultery or apostasy, oppresses women and kills people for sodomy and adultery. To mention a few things.

I think if we lower the number of people that do this in the world, we've done society a favour. It's okay for them to believe Muhammed was the last prophet and that Allah is the one true god, but for them to use that to justify the death of people exercising their rights makes me ill. It's got to stop. Frankly, I think the solution is to moderate this. They can have their art and their philosophy, they can have their religion, but it's got be much more humane and it can't violate anyone's basic human rights.

For those moderate muslims that don't like the worse aspects of sharia, law, they're doing the right thing. I'm happy for them to believe what they want to believe, and so long as they don't violate basic human rights, then they're fine.

 

[Evil Eye]

Hey Bob, I knew Jesus personally. He condoned skinning puppies alive and making hats from their pelts.

There, Christianity now officially encourages skinning puppies alive and making hats from their pelts. Boy that was easy!

And before you start forming a rebuttal, understand that I just exercised the exact same logic used to justify things like stoning.

This section of the article in particular is worth noting:

No stoning in the Quran

First things first. Although Mr. Bekdil defined stoning as an “explicit Quranic commandment,” it actually isn’t. There is simply no reference to stoning in the whole Quran. The only scripture that orders this painful execution is in fact the Torah. In Islam, stoning appeared as a post-Quranic injunction, established by “hadiths,” or sayings attributed to the prophet, whose authenticity has always been contested.

And not that I approve of the true fact, the fact is you're blatantly lying (or utterly ignorant) to say that he punishment for adultery is death. It is, in fact, the lash. I'll agree that this is inhumane, of course, but you're still way the hell off base.

Homosexuality? Yeah. You're wrong, again.

The only stance on homosexuality that the Qur'an takes is that it's a sin. Obviously I already disagree with it, but that has nothing to do with my point. The only lines in the Qur'an that come even close to suggesting a type of punishment are these:

And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them. 004.015

And as for the two who are guilty of indecency from among you, give them both a punishment; then if they repent and amend, turn aside from them; surely Allah is Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful. 004.016

Source here.

Basically, house arrest "until Allah finds a new way for them" for women. What that way out would be is not specified. On the other hand, men are simply said to be punished somehow. These are some of the unfortunate ambiguities in the Qur'an that allow someone to play fill in the blanks with whatever the hell they want.

This does not make what they fill in those blanks WITH endorsed by the Qur'an. It simply makes it the latest diatribe being spat out by some notable bigot in the region who wants to thump a few holy texts and pretend that what he wants is what the faith directs. Which, y'know, happens every day with many other faiths, especially Christianity.

To contrast, here's a line from the Torah:

Lev.20,13 And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Source here.

So, it seems you've misplaced a punitive action from another religion and shoveled it onto Islam -- or perhaps you just made an assumption where you didn't know what the hell you were talking about.

By the way, your completely and utterly wrong information about adultery also happens to be completely accurate for the Jewish faith, as taken literally. The punishment for any participant in an extramarital affair is death.

As for sexism, this section in particular caught my eye.

The Law in Patriarchal Days.

In the patriarchal days the Adultery of the wife required no proof, for whenever the head of the family suspected her, he could kill her.

Beyond that, the adulterous actions of men would generally go unimpeded. That's a nice little bit of sexism for you.

But I'm of course not going to argue that the Jewish faith supports that. This is not representative of the faith. This is just representative of people within the faith, because people suck. Period.

If you want to say that less people should be religious in general, that's all well and good, but you seem to be taking a specific stance against Islam and muslims, and frankly, everytime you open your mouth on the subject you make yourself look more and more ignorant and biased.

 

[El Nino]

Would it be similarly bigoted to suggest that lowering the amount of people who practice Scientology would benefit society? Would it be similarly bigoted to suggest that lowering the amount of people who reject many scientific fields such as geology, biology, cosmology, etc. in order to believe in young Earth Creationism would benefit society?

Yes.

As an aside, the Chinese government used similar reasoning while oppressing the Falun Gong practitioners.

I think we're assuming too much if we assume that a society that completely rejects all religion in favor of the sciences is inherently superior to one that follows religion. I am of the opinion that some people need religion, and I fail to see how my taking away their right to practice it would benefit me, even as a person who doesn't practice a religion. Their beliefs don't cross over into my personal space if I don't let it.

There are people in the world who have endured far more than I have. Just because I've never been put in a place where I needed to have faith in something greater than myself doesn't mean I can rightly criticize someone who comes from that.

Science loses nothing if certain segments of a population don't believe in it. Science only loses ground if that segment controls the laws of the land. If religion and law are separate, it won't be much of a problem.

You're saying that Islam has cultural value. Sure, Islamic art may be nice. But, you're talking about a culture, in it's "purest form", stones people to death, kills people for adultery or apostasy, oppresses women and kills people for sodomy and adultery. To mention a few things.

EE already commented on that. I just wanted to add that a lot of the things we see take place under Sharia Law are similar to what we've seen in places that have undergone a Communist revolt. Communism and Islam are very different. If anything, Communism would be an atheist authority to Sharia Law's religious authority.

Now, the reason these regimes use such brutal methods is most likely because any time there has been a revolt, the new authority that emerges is weak. It doesn't have the established power base that a long-standing government has. So, in order to solidify it's position as the ruling authority, it is going to impose a very oppressive doctrine to invoke fear in the population. That fear is the basis of political power. Without that fear, the people have no reason to obey the law.

It's been noted by critics of the government of Iran that some of the people executed there on charges of homosexuality may have been political dissidents.

In my eyes, it isn't the religion that is the center of things. It's government and politics. Even in ancient times, pharaohs and emperors ruled by "divine" rights. Those in power just need something to hold over people's heads. North Korea, a Communist country, invokes the concept of divine right to legitimize the rule of its current leader. Authority is, like the stock market, upheld by public faith.

 

[KrazyGlue]

NOTE: Would have responded to Bob Jane as well, but EE pretty much covered it. Moving on:

I'm quite confused here. You say that the followers of a particular religion have been misled by their authority figures, yet that has nothing to do with the religion. What are you considering the religion? The original texts? If so, notice the caveat; Islam, as currently practiced, diminishes scientific inquiry. On second thought, it should be "as currently popularly practiced," but that's irrelevant to this point. The issue is the current interpretation and practice thereof. This is why religious leaders interpreting religious texts, disseminating information to the followers of that religion, who then act on that information has everything to do with religion. If this has nothing to do with religion, then I have no idea in what sense you are using the term.

I'm saying that following the religion is not harmful to society. It's only popularly practiced that way because some notable religious figures convinced the Muslims that was the way it should be practiced. My main problem with Thunderfoot's video is where he says that we should either lower the amount of people in the religion or we should remove the "anti-science attribute" (of which there is none). He should have said something more along the lines of "We should remove the anti-science sentiments that have been introduced into the popular practice of the religion".

Please explain why. Would it be similarly bigoted to suggest that lowering the amount of people who practice Scientology would benefit society? Would it be similarly bigoted to suggest that lowering the amount of people who reject many scientific fields such as geology, biology, cosmology, etc. in order to believe in young Earth Creationism would benefit society?

Of course it's bigoted. You'd be denying them a fundamental right (freedom of religion) just because you think you know what's right for society.

This is where realizing strict concepts of religion are important. Take for example, the Christian who attends church once a month, and the only thing in the bible he believes is that Jesus will save his soul. Now, contrast that person with someone who believes the bible is inerrant. Do they adhere to the same religion? I contend that they do not. The same could be said of the liberal Christian as compared to a cultural Christian. Even though all three individuals may self-identify as a Christian, the above criticism would not apply to all three since it is specifically directed to a particular subset of Christianity. In this sense, the terms Christianity and Islam are somewhat ambiguous since they can be used as umbrella terms for many different religions or for a specific subset of religious claims. Failing to realize this can lead to accusations of over generalizations when no such have been made. Here, I am using the term to refer to a specific subset of claims. So, with that in mind, why is it bigoted?

Well, you're treating a group of people with intolerance because you're devoted to your own opinions and preferences. (Just for clarification, when I say "you", I am referring to Thunderfoot).

What is the cultural value of religion? What is the artistic value of religion? What is the philosophical value of religion? I don't find many redeeming qualities in religion. Perhaps you could explain what they are.

Don't tell me you've never heard of or seen any religious art, movies, music, and other media.

 

[rvkevin]

I'm saying that following the religion is not harmful to society. It's only popularly practiced that way because some notable religious figures convinced the Muslims that was the way it should be practiced. My main problem with Thunderfoot's video is where he says that we should either lower the amount of people in the religion or we should remove the "anti-science attribute" (of which there is none). He should have said something more along the lines of "We should remove the anti-science sentiments that have been introduced into the popular practice of the religion".

You are operating under a different notion of religion than I am using. I think what he said and what you think he should have said are equivalent. What you think he should have said concedes that there are aspects of the current religion that are detrimental to society and that we should use social pressure to change the current religion to something different. Again, I am considering different interpretations or denominations to be different religions. If you want to influence the current practice of the religion of Islam to be a more liberal version of Islam, then this is exactly my contention. You are suggesting that lowering the number of people of the religion would benefit society.

Of course it's bigoted. You'd be denying them a fundamental right just because you think you know what's right for society.

Its not denying anything. It is not even a prescription. It is a description. It does not suggest that people should or should not adhere to such a belief system, nor does it suggest that people should be tolerant or intolerant of such a belief system. The only way to make it a prescription is to make an illogical connection between the two claims.

Well, you're treating a group of people with intolerance because you're devoted to your own opinions and preferences.

Lets say he thinks that society would be better if its members are scientifically literate, informed on the issues, and know how to think rationally for themselves. This means that society would be less off if certain members of society don't fit that description and if these members attained those attributes, most likely from education, then society would be better off. This is what you are calling intolerance. Well yes, he and I prefer to live in a society that makes informed decisions, I didn't realize we are alone in that respect.

Don't tell me you've never heard of or seen any religious art, movies, music, and other media.

Are these redeeming qualities? Can we obtain the same benefits via other means? Is the Iliad more valuable than Harry Potter because it reflects a religion and Harry Potter doesn't? You have to consider the opportunity cost as well. Personally, I find a picture taken of a tiny black spot in the sky delivered by the Hubble Telescope to be vastly more amazing than any religious art piece I have ever seen. Had those pieces of art not been inspired by religion, I don't think I would miss it.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Okay, I'd like to straighten a few things up. Firstly, I never said the actions were actually mentioned in the Qur'an, I said that it was part of their culture. Sharia law, which I'm basing all this off, is Islamic Law, and if Islamic Law isn't part of Islamic culture, I'm not sure what it is. Sure, Sharia law isn't intrinsic to their culture, but in some cases it is part of their culture.

In a number of Islamic countries homosexuality and sodomy is punishable by death. These include, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Somalia. These countries are predominantly muslim and are theocracies. Source

It also happens that blasphemy is viewed as worthy of the death penalty be some scholars. Qadi 'Iyad ibn Musa al-Yahsubi has said:

The Qur'an says that Allah curses the one who harms the Prophet in this world and He connected harm of Himself to harm of the Prophet. There is no dispute that anyone who curses Allah is killed and that his curse demands that he be categorized as an unbeliever. The Judgment of the unbeliever is that he is killed. [...] There is a difference between ... harming Allah and His Messenger and harming the believers. Injuring the believers, short of murder, incurs beating and exemplary punishment. The judgment against those who harm Allah and His Prophet is more severe – the death penalty.

Apostasy is punishable by death as well. Many people who advocate Sharia Law argue that apostasy is worthy of the death penalty. Source. And those that argue in favour of religious freedom are in the minority. Source

Furthermore, it happens that Sharia law is sexist, at least in some cases. Their testimony, in general, is valued less than a man's and won't be accepted on a few matters. Source

So, look while these practices are not intrinsic to Islam, they're still there and justified by it. I'm not asking that Islam stop, I'm merely asking that Muslims who practice Sharia law stop practicing the more barbaric parts of it.

EE already commented on that. I just wanted to add that a lot of the things we see take place under Sharia Law are similar to what we've seen in places that have undergone a Communist revolt. Communism and Islam are very different. If anything, Communism would be an atheist authority to Sharia Law's religious authority.

Now, the reason these regimes use such brutal methods is most likely because any time there has been a revolt, the new authority that emerges is weak. It doesn't have the established power base that a long-standing government has. So, in order to solidify it's position as the ruling authority, it is going to impose a very oppressive doctrine to invoke fear in the population. That fear is the basis of political power. Without that fear, the people have no reason to obey the law.

Well, guess what, those Communists shouldn't do that either. It doesn't matter who does it, it's still wrong. If Communism is used to justify these deeds, then there is a problem with Communism. It's the same with religion, if religion is used to justify barbaric practices, then there is a problem with it. At the very least, they must come to terms with the fact that these practices are in fact barbaric, and do something about it.

It's been noted by critics of the government of Iran that some of the people executed there on charges of homosexuality may have been political dissidents.

Well, okay that's fine then, however, Islam is used to justify the killing of these people.

In my eyes, it isn't the religion that is the center of things. It's government and politics. Even in ancient times, pharaohs and emperors ruled by "divine" rights. Those in power just need something to hold over people's heads. North Korea, a Communist country, invokes the concept of divine right to legitimize the rule of its current leader. Authority is, like the stock market, upheld by public faith.

That's probably true, but the justification that which is barbaric by that which is considered holy must stop. This must be done so that these practices must stop.

 

[El Nino]

Well, guess what, those Communists shouldn't do that either. It doesn't matter who does it, it's still wrong. If Communism is used to justify these deeds, then there is a problem with Communism. It's the same with religion, if religion is used to justify barbaric practices, then there is a problem with it. At the very least, they must come to terms with the fact that these practices are in fact barbaric, and do something about it.

My point is that neither ideology matters. Any regime that fears being toppled will resort to brutal measures to maintain its power.

Well, okay that's fine then, however, Islam is used to justify the killing of these people.



That's probably true, but the justification that which is barbaric by that which is considered holy must stop. This must be done so that these practices must stop.

These practices won't be stopped by addressing the doctrine that is used to justify it. This is because the people making the justifications know that the doctrine is just a propaganda tool. They have political objectives, and they will attempt to fulfill the objective no matter what anyone else thinks. The doctrine is their PR ploy. They can manipulate it as it suits them.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

My point is that neither ideology matters. Any regime that fears being toppled will resort to brutal measures to maintain its power.

Fair enough, but should we condone ideologies that are used to justify atrocities?

These practices won't be stopped by addressing the doctrine that is used to justify it. This is because the people making the justifications know that the doctrine is just a propaganda tool. They have political objectives, and they will attempt to fulfill the objective no matter what anyone else thinks. The doctrine is their PR ploy. They can manipulate it as it suits them.

I'm not suggesting we address the doctrine. I'm suggesting that the doctrine and/or the culture surrounding it should change to make it less barbaric.

 

[KrazyGlue]

You are operating under a different notion of religion than I am using. I think what he said and what you think he should have said are equivalent. What you think he should have said concedes that there are aspects of the current religion that are detrimental to society and that we should use social pressure to change the current religion to something different. Again, I am considering different interpretations or denominations to be different religions. If you want to influence the current practice of the religion of Islam to be a more liberal version of Islam, then this is exactly my contention. You are suggesting that lowering the number of people of the religion would benefit society.

Nope, there are no aspects of the religion detrimental to society. It just how some people have decided to practice it. But honestly, if you think any small change to your interpretation of a religion changes you religion, then you're basically saying nobody has the same religion as anyone else, right?

Its not denying anything. It is not even a prescription. It is a description. It does not suggest that people should or should not adhere to such a belief system, nor does it suggest that people should be tolerant or intolerant of such a belief system. The only way to make it a prescription is to make an illogical connection between the two claims.
Lets say he thinks that society would be better if its members are scientifically literate, informed on the issues, and know how to think rationally for themselves. This means that society would be less off if certain members of society don't fit that description and if these members attained those attributes, most likely from education, then society would be better off. This is what you are calling intolerance. Well yes, he and I prefer to live in a society that makes informed decisions, I didn't realize we are alone in that respect.

Oh, didn't know that you think Muslim people are generally uninformed and stupid. And yeah, it's still bigoted even just to say "society would be better off without Islam" or "society would be better off is everyone is scientifically literate and well-informed", because you're essentially saying your way of life is better than theirs.

Are these redeeming qualities? Can we obtain the same benefits via other means? Is the Iliad more valuable than Harry Potter because it reflects a religion and Harry Potter doesn't? You have to consider the opportunity cost as well. Personally, I find a picture taken of a tiny black spot in the sky delivered by the Hubble Telescope to be vastly more amazing than any religious art piece I have ever seen. Had those pieces of art not been inspired by religion, I don't think I would miss it.

Sorry to say it, but not everyone in the world agrees with you. Many people (not just religious people), find particular value in religiously influenced art, music, and movies. Yes, those would all still exist without religion, but a very common theme for them (especially art) would be gone. Many of the best paintings and literature ever would not ever have been made were it not for religion. Think Paradise Lost, Dante's Inferno, The Last Supper, Sistine Chapel Paintings, The Creation of Adam, etc. And I'm sorry that you don't like them, but many people do, and they all have large historical significance.

 

[rvkevin]

It just how some people have decided to practice it.

That to me, is the definition of religion; a certain set of prescriptive and descriptive claims. To say that is not relevant to the religion is completely nonsensical to me. I don't know what you are referring to when you say "the religion." What are you referring to when you say "the religion"?

But honestly, if you think any small change to your interpretation of a religion changes you religion, then you're basically saying nobody has the same religion as anyone else, right?

Take for example, two people who adhere to a single text. The entire text comprises of one line: "Thou shall not kill." The first person holds a literal view and is therefore a pacifist vegetarian. The second person takes a liberal view (the interpretation that kill is the synonymous to murder) and is a meat eating veteran of war. Do they have the same religion? Do they practice the same religion? No, their practices are polar opposites. Even though they may hold the same texts as sacred, their difference in interpretation results in contradictory prescriptions. They effectively practice different religions.

In different contexts, religions can be similar or different. Here, we are looking at how well Islam deals with inquiry. If there is a form of Islam that thwarts inquiry and a different form that welcomes it, then I consider them distinct religions for the purpose of this discussion. If we were to take your suggestion that they fall under the same religion, then it actually falsifies the religion since it would condone contradictory prescriptions. Also, if we are to say that they are a single religion, then there is no way to differentiate the two. To criticize one would entail criticizing the other, which is why I prefer to deal with a specific set of claims, and since different interpretations yield variable sets of claims, they may or may not be considered the same religion in the context of the discussion.

Oh, didn't know that you think Muslim people are generally uninformed and stupid. And yeah, it's still bigoted even just to say "society would be better off without Islam" or "society would be better off is everyone is scientifically literate and well-informed", because you're essentially saying your way of life is better than theirs.

That charge was towards Young Earth Creationists. I think you need to look at what the definition of bigoted means. It is not bigoted to observe that, given certain desires, certain societies function better than others. It is not bigoted to observe that certain prescriptions are better for economic growth and scientific growth. It is not bigoted to observe that some societies who desire these sorts of progress don't follow the prescriptions that lead to that progress. Unless you think that Muslims living in those parts of the world don't want better living conditions, then it is not bigoted to observe that changing their practices would tend to fulfill their own desires better. This has nothing to do with us being better than them. It only concerns their own desires and the best way to fulfill them. If it is, then point out the flaw.

Sorry to say it, but not everyone in the world agrees with you. Many people (not just religious people), find particular value in religiously influenced art, music, and movies. Yes, those would all still exist without religion, but a very common theme for them (especially art) would be gone. Many of the best paintings and literature ever would not ever have been made were it not for religion. Think Paradise Lost, Dante's Inferno, The Last Supper, Sistine Chapel Paintings, The Creation of Adam, etc. And I'm sorry that you don't like them, but many people do, and they all have large historical significance.

I realize not everyone agrees with me, but that wasn't the point. Your response does not even begin to try to justify the value of religious art. Does this value redeem the cost? Can this value be achieved in a more efficient manner? What is the opportunity cost of these works?

 

[KrazyGlue]

That to me, is the definition of religion; a certain set of prescriptive and descriptive claims. To say that is not relevant to the religion is completely nonsensical to me. I don't know what you are referring to when you say "the religion." What are you referring to when you say "the religion"?
Take for example, two people who adhere to a single text. The entire text comprises of one line: "Thou shall not kill." The first person holds a literal view and is therefore a pacifist vegetarian. The second person takes a liberal view (the interpretation that kill is the synonymous to murder) and is a meat eating veteran of war. Do they have the same religion? Do they practice the same religion? No, their practices are polar opposites. Even though they may hold the same texts as sacred, their difference in interpretation results in contradictory prescriptions. They effectively practice different religions.

In different contexts, religions can be similar or different. Here, we are looking at how well Islam deals with inquiry. If there is a form of Islam that thwarts inquiry and a different form that welcomes it, then I consider them distinct religions for the purpose of this discussion. If we were to take your suggestion that they fall under the same religion, then it actually falsifies the religion since it would condone contradictory prescriptions. Also, if we are to say that they are a single religion, then there is no way to differentiate the two. To criticize one would entail criticizing the other, which is why I prefer to deal with a specific set of claims, and since different interpretations yield variable sets of claims, they may or may not be considered the same religion in the context of the discussion.

If that is how you define religion, then fine. However, the argument is based on Thunderfoot's opinions. And even if he defines religion the same way you do, he shouldn't use blanket terms addressing "Islam", because he's only talking about a particular group of Muslims. That's why I have a problem with him: inaccurate blanket statements.

That charge was towards Young Earth Creationists. I think you need to look at what the definition of bigoted means. It is not bigoted to observe that, given certain desires, certain societies function better than others. It is not bigoted to observe that certain prescriptions are better for economic growth and scientific growth. It is not bigoted to observe that some societies who desire these sorts of progress don't follow the prescriptions that lead to that progress. Unless you think that Muslims living in those parts of the world don't want better living conditions, then it is not bigoted to observe that changing their practices would tend to fulfill their own desires better. This has nothing to do with us being better than them. It only concerns their own desires and the best way to fulfill them. If it is, then point out the flaw.

Ironically, several of the sentences in a few of my past posts have been lifted from the Merriam Webster's definition of a bigot, of course with a few words reordered or switched in order to make sense grammatically. I suppose it depends on how loosely you use the definition.

"a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own"

Perhaps I used it too loosely. But I would still think that, based off this definition, saying society would benefit from the reduction of the amount of Muslims is bigoted. Why? First of all, it ignores any value of the religion other than scientific. Second of all, it also ignores the fact that not all Muslims are like the ones he described. Thirdly, not following science is certainly not an integral part of Islam, yet Thunderfoot acts as if it is.

I realize not everyone agrees with me, but that wasn't the point. Your response does not even begin to try to justify the value of religious art. Does this value redeem the cost? Can this value be achieved in a more efficient manner? What is the opportunity cost of these works?

Can this value be achieved in a different manner? How could you possibly have religious art/media without religion? Consider the notion of removing weapons from video games. The entire first/third person shooter genre is gone, and many RPGs have to heavily alter the way the game is played. There is no way to replace them, because that entire theme is gone. Sure, we can make other kinds of video games, but it's not the same.

As to whether the value redeems the cost (which is what I was addressing in my previous post), many people would agree that it does.

As to the opportunity cost, I don't think there is one. No artwork is the same as the other (unless it's a copy), so there's no real replacement. If you don't have religious art, you've lost that subject matter completely. Some people find particular value in religious art or media because they feel spiritual about it or at least inspired. For example, I watched a movie about Buddhism that I found fascinating and thought provoking, even though I am not religious and don't even know any Buddhists.

 

[rvkevin]

If that is how you define religion, then fine. However, the argument is based on Thunderfoot's opinions. And even if he defines religion the same way you do, he shouldn't use blanket terms addressing "Islam", because he's only talking about a particular group of Muslims. That's why I have a problem with him: inaccurate blanket statements.

Would you have problems with the blanket statements such as Republicans vote for Republicans, Republicans are fiscally conservative, or Republicans are against gay marriage? All of these are blanket statements that don't hold true for all Republicans. They only represent a particular group of Republicans (even if they hold for the vast majority of cases). However, we use shortcuts in language so we don't have to say, "Given that someone labels themselves a Republican, it is statistically more likely to vote for a Republican" every time we mention a link between being a member of a group and a certain characteristic.

Or if we are talking about a specific topic, such as gay marriage, we usually refer the position against the proposition to be the Republican point of view or position, since if you vote for a Republican, it is more likely that they will be against the motion even if all not Republicans are against the proposition. Would it be more accurate to say that this position typically embodies the Republican ideology, or it tends to be advocated by the majority of Republicans? Maybe so, but due to shortcuts, being against gay marriage is a Republican position.

The only way for blanket statements to be ill-received is if the person hearing them fails to invoke the principle of charity and assumes that the speaker is talking about every conceivable person who may adhere to the label. Instead of instantly levying the charge of bigoted, apply the principle of charity and see if he was using shorthand language. Did you take the time to ask him if his claims held true for the Muslim professors in the United State or similar subset of individuals who label themselves Muslim? I doubt he would say that they comprise of the same qualities that he was criticizing. It is this quick charge of guilty, without taking time to figure out what was actually meant that I detest.

"a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own"

Its hard to say someone is prejudiced when his conclusions are based off of observations and not formed before the fact.

Can this value be achieved in a different manner? How could you possibly have religious art/media without religion? Consider the notion of removing weapons from video games. The entire first/third person shooter genre is gone, and many RPGs have to heavily alter the way the game is played. There is no way to replace them, because that entire theme is gone. Sure, we can make other kinds of video games, but it's not the same.

Right, they would not be able to achieve those feelings via these sources, but are there other methods to achieve things that are comparable in value. For example, if we replaced all of the religious artwork with mythological artwork, would the same feelings be evoked. Would the observers value it similarly? If so, then religion is not a necessary element for the emotive response from religious artwork. Similarly, if the movie you watched had not featured Buddhism, but a fictional set of practices, would it have invoked the same thoughts?

As to whether the value redeems the cost (which is what I was addressing in my previous post), many people would agree that it does.

By the same reasoning, someone who has an extremely inflated appreciation of Guernica could justify war. This is why we don't make societal decisions based on what a few value. When we talk of things that society values, we talk of things that are nearly universal, things like a better economy, better living conditions, medical advancements, etc., which are accessible through scientific discovery.

As to the opportunity cost, I don't think there is one.

There is always an opportunity cost. What is the piece of artwork that Michelangelo forgo to paint the Sistine Chapel? This is why proposing the value of artwork is problematic. You don't know the opportunity cost of making such a piece. If the value of the Sistine Chapel's ceiling is valued at X, it is entirely plausible that his artwork, if not inspired by religion, would be greater than or less than X. Perhaps people would be much more amazed had Michelangelo been inspired by something else. We have no way to figure out the opportunity cost, so it can't be used as evidence for or against continuing religious practices.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Would you have problems with the blanket statements such as Republicans vote for Republicans, Republicans are fiscally conservative, or Republicans are against gay marriage? All of these are blanket statements that don't hold true for all Republicans. They only represent a particular group of Republicans (even if they hold for the vast majority of cases). However, we use shortcuts in language so we don't have to say, "Given that someone labels themselves a Republican, it is statistically more likely to vote for a Republican" every time we mention a link between being a member of a group and a certain characteristic.

Or if we are talking about a specific topic, such as gay marriage, we usually refer the position against the proposition to be the Republican point of view or position, since if you vote for a Republican, it is more likely that they will be against the motion even if all not Republicans are against the proposition. Would it be more accurate to say that this position typically embodies the Republican ideology, or it tends to be advocated by the majority of Republicans? Maybe so, but due to shortcuts, being against gay marriage is a Republican position.

The only way for blanket statements to be ill-received is if the person hearing them fails to invoke the principle of charity and assumes that the speaker is talking about every conceivable person who may adhere to the label. Instead of instantly levying the charge of bigoted, apply the principle of charity and see if he was using shorthand language. Did you take the time to ask him if his claims held true for the Muslim professors in the United State or similar subset of individuals who label themselves Muslim? I doubt he would say that they comprise of the same qualities that he was criticizing. It is this quick charge of guilty, without taking time to figure out what was actually meant that I detest.

No, I've definitely considered what he's trying to say. I just think he doesn't like Muslims (or any religious people) in general. For example, he calls them "jerks" in the first video for the mosque building. It's another example of him lashing out at Muslims without thinking about what the actual purpose of the mosque is.

Its hard to say someone is prejudiced when his conclusions are based off of observations and not formed before the fact.

I honestly think he formed conclusions before the fact and then made up some reasons to put down Islam.

Right, they would not be able to achieve those feelings via these sources, but are there other methods to achieve things that are comparable in value. For example, if we replaced all of the religious artwork with mythological artwork, would the same feelings be evoked. Would the observers value it similarly? If so, then religion is not a necessary element for the emotive response from religious artwork. Similarly, if the movie you watched had not featured Buddhism, but a fictional set of practices, would it have invoked the same thoughts? By the same reasoning, someone who has an extremely inflated appreciation of Guernica could justify war. This is why we don't make societal decisions based on what a few value. When we talk of things that society values, we talk of things that are nearly universal, things like a better economy, better living conditions, medical advancements, etc., which are accessible through scientific discovery.

No, it wouldn't be the same with mythological work. Many people feel a spiritual connection to religious artwork. And it's not just "a few". This is not some weird fringe group. Most people who study art have a great appreciation for religious art. Religion is also more inspiring than old myths to most people, as their religion is often one of the most important things in their life. Can you honestly envision the millions of people who wear a crucifix necklace switching to a minotaur necklace? Can you imagine the subject of the bible being Greek mythology? It's not the same. Hopefully you can see why there's less of an emotional or even spiritual connection.

There is always an opportunity cost. What is the piece of artwork that Michelangelo forgo to paint the Sistine Chapel? This is why proposing the value of artwork is problematic. You don't know the opportunity cost of making such a piece. If the value of the Sistine Chapel's ceiling is valued at X, it is entirely plausible that his artwork, if not inspired by religion, would be greater than or less than X. Perhaps people would be much more amazed had Michelangelo been inspired by something else. We have no way to figure out the opportunity cost, so it can't be used as evidence for or against continuing religious practices.

Then why did you ask the question in the first place?

 

[rvkevin]

No, it wouldn't be the same with mythological work. Many people feel a spiritual connection to religious artwork. And it's not just "a few". This is not some weird fringe group. Most people who study art have a great appreciation for religious art. Religion is also more inspiring than old myths to most people, as their religion is often one of the most important things in their life. Can you honestly envision the millions of people who wear a crucifix necklace switching to a minotaur necklace? Can you imagine the subject of the bible being Greek mythology? It's not the same. Hopefully you can see why there's less of an emotional or even spiritual connection.

Here, you are not considering the value of the religious artwork to justify religion, but the value of religion itself. Had those individuals not been religious, then the connection to the artwork would be considerably less, so we must consider whether their religiosity has positive or negative externalities. I think we can agree that different types of religions can have positive or negative externalities. Forms with positive effects should be encouraged and forms that have negative effects should be discouraged. I think I'll leave it at that.

Then why did you ask the question in the first place?

Tried to used the Socratic method, but got impatient.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Here, you are not considering the value of the religious artwork to justify religion, but the value of religion itself. Had those individuals not been religious, then the connection to the artwork would be considerably less, so we must consider whether their religiosity has positive or negative externalities. I think we can agree that different types of religions can have positive or negative externalities. Forms with positive effects should be encouraged and forms that have negative effects should be discouraged. I think I'll leave it at that.

Well, yeah, the whole point of bringing up the religious art/media was to show that religion has many positive aspects in society.

I'm sorry if I was being too picky about what Thunderfoot said, but I think it all depends on how you read into it. And from the few videos I've seen, he seems to just attack religion in general, and I just don't think he considers all sides of the issue. You could potentially be right in how you've interpreted his thoughts. But it just seems like molding a set of opinions to what Thunderfoot says, saying "well, maybe he meant this", because it makes him not sound bigoted (ironically, this is generally the way religious people rationalize some of the immoral parts of their holy books: "oh, well God probably really meant this"). If your interpretation of his videos is indeed correct, and mine is not, then perhaps I have misjudged him. But I don't get the feeling that the things you described earlier are what Thunderfoot had in mind. Anyway, yeah, there's not much more to say other than it's up to interpretation (and, in my mind, suspicious).

Tried to used the Socratic method, but got impatient.

Fair enough.