Snowmen are anti-Islamic, promote lust

This would be the same Jesus who endorsed slavery and introduced the concept of Hell where none existed before, yes?

1 Like

I think I know what this means but I am not sure enough to be able to comment safely on it one way or the other.
I will say that “delights that the ultimate freedom a human has is to re-define what humanity itself is and may be” sounds to me extremely like a chimaera bombinating in a vacuum. Perhaps my brain isn’t big enough.

I can’t be bothered to go and check because my memory of the NT is rusty these days, but I think you may be confusing Saul of Tarsus with Jesus. And I would be the first to agree that Saul of Tarsus was a nasty man.
But in any case you are stretching a point, which is a geometrically forbidden operation. If you really expect a 1st century AD prophet to have the world view of a 21st century Harvard educated liberal (or even this Cambridge educated left winger writing this) then you are being more than a little unrealistic. The point is, was his morality an advance on that of the time? And given the viewpoints of both the Romans and the Temple, they were. Since then the progressive wing of Christianity has continually rewritten morality as ideas evolved. Slavery only got the kybosh in Engand in the early 19th century, in the US it had to wait quite a bit longer and wasn’t officially over until the end of desegregation in the 1970s. It is left as an exercise for the reader to notice who were the leaders in the anti-slavery movement.


Why does it seem like any old Muslim cleric can issue these decrees and fatwas and it’s picked up as “ISLAM BANS SNOWMEN!” or “ALLAH PUTS BOUNTY ON SALMAN RUSHDIE!” Do all these dipshits somehow have the religious authority to make policy? Or is an entire religion getting unfairly tainted by its outliers, like if some stupid shit Pat Robertson said were taken as the Official Voice Of Christianity?


For their sect, the Wahabis, they do. For the other 95% or whatever, not so much.
By the way, who makes abortion policy in the US? Doctors and medical ethicists, I suppose?


It is also left as an exercise for the reader to notice who were the leaders in the pro-slavery movement.


This amuses me.


Heh. Just sayin’…

It doesn’t help that I was reading through a Reddit thread, on one of the more progressive sections of the 'site, a discussion about whether or not it’s okay to defend the actions of Charlie Hebdo, given that the cartoons they published could be seen as Islamophobic. They even deleted some comments for being “racist” (TIL Islam is a racee…)

Nope, no mistake.
Luke 12:47-48
Matthew 18:23-35
Matthew 24:45-51
to mention a few.
If Jesus was divine, I’d expect his morality to be unchanging, but since he’s only a myth I’d expect the morality of the times. Compared to the liberal mores of today, Jesus is a bit of a twat to be frank, and not to be used as a comparison with virtue.


Mitchell and Webb:


It begins with freedom of thought
It continues with freedom of speech
And it ends with freedom of belief

Whoa. Scary stuff.


I’d think it’s the latter. Pretty much any cleric can issue a fatwa, which is a religious ruling, but it generally functions as a sort of dialectical conversation, draw from different schools of Islamic jurisprudence. There are many clerics, and the majority work locally, with their communities and general help them by making such rulings. In one book I read about early modern Palestine under the Ottomans, people would work to get the rulings they wanted - if one imam wasn’t helpful, well, this other guy down the street practices a different school of law, and he’ll be more amenable.

But yeah, I think the way that Islam and muslims are mediated helps to make us think they are all backwards and ridiculous, when I’m sure that’s not always the case.

Are you trolling? The answer is “wealthy Southern landowners”.

If you aren’t American and familiar with the history, I’ll point out that Unitarians, Universalists, and Quakers are the reason color-line slavery does not exist in America today. Have you never heard of John Brown, my friend? How about “Beecher’s Bibles?” How about Theodore Parker and Ephraim Nute? The underground railroad? “Bleeding Kanzas” and the Leavenworth Constitution? The American abolitionists were, with a few notable exceptions, religiously motivated by a vision of all humanity as the children of God. The Bapist Church literally split into Southern and mainstream versions over the question of whether slavery was biblically ordained (the Southern Baptists recanted on this issue quite recently). You can’t claim that either Christianity or religion created or universally condoned slavery, that’s ridiculously historically inaccurate.

Religion is a vast tapestry. Internet atheists look at a thread and believe they’ve seen the whole picture, which leads to ludicrously inaccurate statements. Most Internet atheists, for example, are unfamiliar with the concept of atheist religions; yet they’ve existed for thousands of years.


Salafis are scary assholes and the Saudis have been exporting that shit hardcore. When the war in Kosova ended, the UN/EU allowed a Saudi charity to administer to the Kosovar countryside, which has been attempting to change the nature of the unorthodox Sufi religious practice there, with some success, I hear. They want to colonize the Islamic world and dominate it, eliminating the variety of practice found and we back these motherfuckers full stop. It’s very sad and kind of scary, because the salafist vision of the umma coupled with the want and poverty these mosques are administering to are a dangerous combination, as we’re seeing right now.


Oh ffs.

Let’s just throw the blanket of religion over the whole secular enterprise of the west from day one shall we? The majority of those things in your Christian and Jewish culture are a result of enlightenment and a move away from behaviour resultant from religious values. The exact opposite of what you imply.
Your brush strokes are way too broad and you’re changing brush every few drops of paint.
Bravo for a mixed up and just world outlook on the importance of distancing the building of fair civilisation out with the hands of the religious loonies.

Dawkins may also think there is a teapot orbiting the sun in such a way as we may never detect it. Who knows!? But shall we speculate that he attributes absolutely no value to have resulted from religious impulse evar. Why not!?



[Slavery Ordained of God](

Let him learn that the southern slave, though degraded compared with his master, is elevated compared with his brethren in Africa.

So, let me be clear about this, you are saying that the overall effect of religion has been zero or slightly negative.
You now need to account for why, if that is so, it is so persistent in so many cultures (its biggest retreat is in Northern Europe, where perhaps coincidentally we are seeing a rise in the nostalgic Right wing in politics).

Murder is persistent in many cultures as well. Are we therefore not permitted to consider its effects negative, at least slightly?


I believe I already mentioned that American Christianity split over the issue of slavery in my earlier post? In other words there were Christians on both sides who claimed their positions were ordained and sanctioned by the angry desert war god of the Jews?

But thanks for the link, I haven’t read that one yet. I like reading 1st person accounts of historical topics. I also like the video you linked earlier, it was very interesting. I’m not sure why the Shaykh kept flashing all those gang signs, though - what was up with that?


You missed a part in your rebuttal: “wealthy Southern CHRISTIAN landowners.” And they had more Biblical passages at their disposal to support their position than the opposition. Both sides in the Civil War marched to the battle lines with Bibles in hand. I’m certain that John Brown felt God was on his side when he attacked Harper’s Ferry. I am also certain that it is indistinguishable from how the Charlie Hebdo attackers felt, or how abortion clinic bombers felt, or the Klan felt as they lynched people for decades with impunity. That surety is indicative of nothing except a a feeling of complete freedom from empathy or consequences.

The reason that slavery doesn’t exist in America any more is not because of the existence of religion, it has to do with amendments added to the Constitution, by humans.

1 Like