• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Who do you fear more?

jimmygun said:
If they took complete control of the country?

Islam

Christianity
Click to expand...

Which version of the above?
 
Diogenes said:
How do you want them pancakes? With or without syrup?
Click to expand...

Without, of course. There are only two suitable toppings for pancakes: crushed strawberries and apple jam (but not together). Everything else is barbaric and heretical.
 
LW said:
Without, of course. There are only two suitable toppings for pancakes: crushed strawberries and apple jam (but not together). Everything else is barbaric and heretical.
Click to expand...



On behalf of the People's Peanut Butter and Maple Syrup Liberation Movement, I hereby declare jihad on you jamists.\

Prepare for the mother of all pancake breakfasts.


N/A
 
I'd prefer a society of wealthy and educated people over one of poor and ignorant ones, regardless of their respective religions or lack thereof. That is to say that if the standard of living remains the same I expect no difference whatsoever.
 
All this talk of "pancakes" is blatant evidence you are nothing but a GLPB- a tool of the media conspiracy "gluing" pastrys to the breakfast table. Often with syrups.

Where are the lox? Where are the herring? When will you wake up and realize all this talk of "pankcakes and syrup" are just a smokescreen for the media's agenda to force upon us breakfast choices we might not otherwise make?

HooHooHAHAHAHEEHEEhawhawhaw!


ETA: I am not an anti-pancakite. I'm merely pointing out a social trend. Check my evidence, I'm not cherry-picking!
 
El Greco said:
I'd prefer a society of wealthy and educated people over one of poor and ignorant ones, regardless of their respective religions or lack thereof. That is to say that if the standard of living remains the same I expect no difference whatsoever.
Click to expand...

A very good point.

But, of course, people's behavior -- including their religious behavior -- can have substantial effect on their standard of living. A friend of mine, for example, belonged to a particular wing-nut Christian cult that takes very seriously the Biblical injunction "neither a borrower nor a lender be." (Apparently it's from the Gospel of Hamlet -- the standards for theological education in this particular cult are not especially strict.) Members of this church are forbidden (on pain of excommunication and what amounts to "shunning") from borrowing money. This, in turn, makes it very difficult either for them to accumulate wealth through the usual channels (such as home ownership), or to attend good schools that incorporate student loans into their funding stream.

This is perhaps an extreme case. But I would be worried about the society this particular cult would create if it took over -- it would create a society of the poor and ignorant, even if there wasn't already one.
 
new drkitten said:
-- it would create a society of the poor and ignorant, even if there wasn't already one.
Click to expand...

Isn't that basically the point, though? If everyone else is as poor and as ignorant as the everage cultist, it excuses that cultist his poverty and ignorance. Isn't this the prime motivator behind all attempts at censorship, forced "fellowship," and restriction of freedoms, at the core? It certainly lies behind the most vocal of our "philosophers" here.

JJMittler advocated restricting human sexual behaviour to the limits at which he himself felt comfortable and then cobbled together a chart of equations that zeroed out at those prejudices.

1inCh, if sincere, has constructed a fanciful and terrifying cosmology out of recycled tent preachers' sermons to justify the crippling fear with which he percieves the world around him, which then makes his attitude of base servility to powers beyond his control the only "rational" response to that universe.

Iacchus has devalued both education and action to excuse his own ignorance and laziness, then cloaked it all in half-understood "mystical" ramblings born of equivocation and rhetorical questions. He then uses this illusion of "wisdom" to grant him the self-esteem that the tragic and horrifying events of his life have denied him.

And lifegazer, poor, sad lifegazer, has devalued everything and erected a house of cards made from his own personal biases and pipe-dreams. I don't know why, but I presume that it's for much the same reason that Iacchus has- it is an easier road to self-fulfillment than actually doing something. Even if it is illusory.
 
Piscivore said:
Isn't that basically the point, though? If everyone else is as poor and as ignorant as the everage cultist, it excuses that cultist his poverty and ignorance. Isn't this the prime motivator behind all attempts at censorship, forced "fellowship," and restriction of freedoms, at the core? It certainly lies behind the most vocal of our "philosophers" here.
Click to expand...

I think, though, that it's rather unfair to point at this bleak picture and blame it in some fashion on religion. I mentioned the Christian cult above, not to blame Christianity for my friend's failings, but as an illustration of one kind of Christianity that would produce a poor and ignorant society. On the other hand, I interviewed at a Jesuit school some years ago where the most charming character flaw in evidence was the belief that if they could uplift everyone to be weathy and educated, they would automatically embrace Catholicism as the only sensible choice. Given this, they more or less eschewed religous education for undergraduates, because they "knew" that you would be back for a second helping.

I'm not familiar with the various sects of Islam (most of my reading has been of Christian theology), but I believe that the same differences hold -- the Bah'ai and Wahaddi sects are as far apart as my cultists and the Jesuits. I admit that I don't know of an Islamic sect offhand that makes as much of a virtue of secular education as do my Jesuits -- but I plead ignorance in the matter.

Philosophy and religion can be used to foster and even to create poverty, ignorance, fear, and hatred. So can an alligator. But I don't want to blame the tools for the workman's errors.
 
I generally echo the belief that it doesn't really matter which religion would be more feared if they were to take complete control of a country, it would be a matter of positions on things like education that would matter.

The one caveat I have on that opinion is that, because of my background, I would at least have enough knowledge and experience with Christianity that I could blend in with a Christian culture much more easily than I could in an Islamic culture. So, in that sense, I suppose I would say that I would fear a totalitarian fundamentalist Islamic government more than a totalitarian fundamentalist Christian government.

Given the proper motivation, I suspect I could fake a very believable religious Christian experience in front of witnesses.
 
jimmygun said:
If they took complete control of the country?

Islam

Christianity
Click to expand...

Both equally crappy choices for theocracy, but I'd fear them less than the Scientologists.
 
new drkitten said:
I think, though, that it's rather unfair to point at this bleak picture and blame it in some fashion on religion.
Click to expand...

Good point. After all, it was the Muslims that kept alive and expanded the knowledge of Greece while Europe was plunged into the Dark Ages.
 
Bahai's aren't a sect of Islam, they are a separate religion. As Christianity is to Judaism, the Bahai Faith is to Islam.
 
I think it would be very interesting if a giant magical lion took control of the country.

Oh!...Sorry!....You said Islam?!?

My mistake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom