U.S. Ambassador Killed Over Anti-Islam Movie

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I'd say pride in religion, country or anything else would make people act irrationally when provoked. It's the "this is who I am and how dare anyone insult me" type of thinking. It is also mass egotism.
 
Religion is a symptom of poverty, or more accurately, a symptom of economic inequality.

I would say this makes sense if I didn't know several very rich people who are also extremely devout. It seems to be a trend among Mormons for one reason or another, perhaps owing to the idea that success in life is a sign of divine favor.

For a long time the consensus about the spread of Christianity and Islam was that the celebration of the poor and marginalized attracted those demographics, i.e. early Christianity and Islam was populated by the lower rungs of society. Recent evidence is challenging that vantage point rather convincingly, though.
 
hi-852-benghazi-protests-jp.jpg


Libya: Four Protesters Killed, 20 Wounded in Benghazi in Demonstrations Against Armed Groups
 
But I disagree with him. I think such judgments about either president are trivial and cheap. I feel the same about that people that like to make much of Bush at the elementary school on 9/11. I've always thought criticizing Bush for not leaping out of his seat and DOING something was shallow with(apologies to present company; I recall one of us recently made that very criticism just a few days ago--can't remember who or what thread. I do disagree with it).

well i missed what reccent critisms you are refering to

And i didn't expect him to leap out of his seat and do something right at that second.....

i'm sorry he still looked like a deer in the headlights....
what he could have done was excuse himself after half min, min saying children/students sometimes when something very important a President has to leave where he is and go talk with his advisors... etc
nice and calm...
 
I think their reaction has less to do with religion and more with their governments taking advantage of anti-American sentiment in the population.

Why aren't Muslims in the U.K., France, Canada, Australia etc. taking to the streets? The common denominator is they live in democratic countries, and those protesting live in places where there is no real concept of free speech or this idea that anybody can post a bloody video on Youtube. To them, a video like this can only be uploaded with U.S. government approval, thus demonstrating another example of American imperial behaviour in the region.

second paragraph has good nuance in it ..now .i've been ouit all day/eve don't know any latest news...

Really most Muslims won't be reacting , yeah i do believe other social-economics factors enter in. there's a ?billion or so believers in Islam so... these are smallish groups in relative terms.

Also that's why you'll see a lot of geometrics, plants animals in there art and mosques, not depictions of
Mohammed and his ? relatives or supporters.

I can also tell you living in a part of Brooklyn near to where a lot of Musloms live/worship the day after
(or 2nd day) 9-11 there was an interfaith march including Muslims to commemorate the death & suffering. I didn't know that area well so i was going down this street and that never found them to join in.

finally there were thousands maybe even more of Muslins in Terhan, Iran that night (still our day/early eve) with candles in the big square memorializing the atrocity.
 
Religion is a symptom of poverty, or more accurately, a symptom of economic inequality.

You have it backwards. On a macro level, poverty is the symptom of dysfunctional values. Compare Israel and Palestine. China and Singapore. Haiti and the Dominican Republic. West and East Germany during the Cold War.

Which countries protected private property rights and economic freedom and which ones viewed the state's role as insuring "economic equality"?
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/w...a-terrorist-attack-white-house-says.html?_r=0

Libya Envoy’s Killing Was a Terrorist Attack, the White House Says
By HELENE COOPER
Published: September 20, 2012

WASHINGTON — The White House is now calling the assault on the American diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, a “terrorist attack.”

“It is self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack,” the White House press secretary, Jay Carney, told reporters aboard Air Force One on Thursday. “Our embassy was attacked violently and the result was four deaths of American officials.”

Until now, White House officials have not used that language in describing the assault. But with the election less than two months away and President Obama’s record on national security a campaign issue, they have come under criticism from Republican lawmakers who say the administration is playing down a threat for which it was unprepared.

It was not self-evident one week ago to the White House. Everyone else yes, the White House no. So what Hillary Clinton, Jay Carney, Susan Rice and other W.H. operatives were saying last week was wrong.

So using the same standard of truth applied to GWB and Iraq we can now say about this White House:

Ambassador dies; the White House lies.
 
INDY500 said:
You have it backwards. On a macro level, poverty is the symptom of dysfunctional values. Compare Israel and Palestine. China and Singapore. Haiti and the Dominican Republic. West and East Germany during the Cold War.

Which countries protected private property rights and economic freedom and which ones viewed the state's role as insuring "economic equality"?

What is the source of "dysfunctional values"?
 
:rolleyes: could you be more dismissive of religion in this thread? I mean, really, I appreciate the fact that you feel differently than me, but you're really piling on in this thread.

Fear of death is the reason religion exists. It's the essence of it. There's no other way around it :shrug:
 
Fear of death is the reason religion exists. It's the essence of it. There's no other way around it :shrug:
If you say so. That's not my reasoning for it, but you aren't talking about me in particular. I don't want to start a useless debate in here.

This whole story just makes me sick. I just haven't really had anything to say.
 
If you say so. That's not my reasoning for it, but you aren't talking about me in particular. I don't want to start a useless debate in here.

This whole story just makes me sick. I just haven't really had anything to say.

I'm not saying it's the reason you or anyone here is religious. I'm saying that the genesis of all religion - the reason it arose in human history - is because of a fear of no longer existing after we die. There's nothing wrong with that
 
Religion is a symptom of being afraid to die.

I'm not sure if that's exclusively why religion exists, but it's certainly a major proximate cause.

I think it may be interesting to have a thread where everyone describes their personal religious beliefs, but I'm not sure.
 
I'm saying that the genesis of all religion - the reason it arose in human history - is because of a fear of no longer existing after we die.

I don't want to seem like I'm picking on you here, but I'd have to challenge this rather strongly. For one, the concept of a well-defined afterlife is a relatively new development. The only pre-Christian society of which I can think that pays any real attention to the afterlife is the ancient Egyptians. Even Judaism, as far as I understand it, does not say much about an afterlife. The mythology about the afterlife in other early religions is vague and often paints a highly depressing picture of what awaits.

Anthropologically speaking, I think it is fairly safe to say that religion, if we define that as some form of ritualized belief in the supernatural, begins as (and largely still is) a means of expressing social value, of demonstrating the importance of certain acts or ideas.

The earliest spiritual rituals, for example, deal with the absolute essentials of life: child-bearing and food-gathering. Then, as family units start to coalesce, ancestor worship develops; next, in early urban environments, deities of farming and warfare appear, and etc.

On this basis I would argue that religion is meant to instill in people a sense of what they have to be doing in order to ensure the survival of their communities. I think that survives even to this day, as you see many religious people believing that their specific values and practices need to be carried out for the good of society at large.
 
On this basis I would argue that religion is meant to instill in people a sense of what they have to be doing in order to ensure the survival of their communities. And I'm sure you can see how that pattern could lead to abuse as society became more complex.

Yeah, that's exactly how I feel too.
 
digitize said:
I'm not sure if that's exclusively why religion exists, but it's certainly a major proximate cause.

I'm certainly open to hear what other people think. It could be interesting. But I think if you go back far enough, to the very beginning of any semblance of religion, the reason would be fear of death. Any way to prove that definitively? Probably not.
It doesn't take a dismissal of modern religions to concede that point though. And like I said, there's nothing wrong with a fear of death. It's perfectly natural. I know I am
 
iron yuppie said:
I don't want to seem like I'm picking on you here

not at all man. I value and appreciate your knowledge. I'm just about to head out for the night, but looking forward to carrying the convo on tomorrow
 
And like I said, there's nothing wrong with a fear of death. It's perfectly natural. I know I am

The idea definitely freaks me out, too. I may not be very religious, but I do like the idea of there being something after this life is over. What exactly that would be, I couldn't begin to tell you, and of course it's not something that I could prove to be true, but the thought of people I love who've passed being comfortable in some other existence and whatnot is a comforting one for sure.
 
Last year, I read "The Evolution of God"...I forgot the author's name. Anyway, the first quarter of the book discusses how religion came about in early societies by looking at cultures like those in Papua New Guinea, which are still very much stone age like. It gives a very good argument on how religion could not be avoided in ancient history. The author is an agnostic, so maybe some of you may want to read it.
 
Back
Top Bottom