Stories like this are why I'm with the RRS, anyone who would rather have his wife and child die than have her seen by a doctor is not someone I consider to be a sane human being.

I have to agree with Sam Harris on his point that Islam is the major threat now. I know that Christianity seems more immediate since it is the closer one (to US citizens), but if recent history is any indication, this isn't the case. Of course, I'd prefer both religions be given up, but I'm comfortable with one at a time. I'm also not saying to give Christianity a free pass if there are no Muslims around!

What burns me is that the U.S. is fucking things up on two levels. I agree that Islam is a major threat to everybody, not just from terror attacks, but from its repressive ideology. Its tenets are more backwards than Christianity's, to be sure.

The thing is, the U.S. insists on making it about the good Christians vs. the bad Muslims. Of course, that runs into a snag really fast. Both religions base their beliefs on faith. Since we can't question faith, we have to "respect the moderate Muslims."

If we would just come out and declare that Islam is a really bad thing, we could possibly make some progress against it, but so long as we're framing it as our god vs. theirs, there will always be a loud and obnoxious drone from the moderates who wish we could just all respect each other.

The second thing is that we are tying Islam into our oil wars, and that muddies the water even worse.  Personally, I'm appalled at the oil wars, but I'm completely behind the concept of weakening Islam as a religion.  Unfortunately, I can't in good conscience support a war that isn't really about religion.

yes, this is insane. but that does not automatically mean ANYONE who beleives in some kind of god is going to be this insane or demand this type of stuff. you can have reasonable tolerance without going overboard and jepardizing safety.  just believing in a higher power doesn't mean a person will act like this. instead of talking about "eradication" maybe you should concentrate your efforts on education. you have to actually get to know a person before you can judge how they will behave in a situation like this.  this is what I mean: you label and judge anyone who believes in something the same. if someone believes in a god, they must be a crazy fundie fanatic who indoctrinates their kids and blocks medical research.  and then you complain that atheists are stereotyped. get a grip and stop stereotyping.

I'm pretty sure nobody's said this.  When you start making statements like this, it becomes hard to take you seriously.  It would be um... insane... to suggest that religion makes everybody completely bat-shit crazy.  To suggest that anyone has said that is what we call building a straw-man.  You put up a caricature of your opponent, and then knock it down.  It doesn't actually accomplish anything for the debate, but it goes a long way to propogating lies about your opponent.

This isn't about tolerance.  This is about the foundation of religion, which is faith.  Until you can logically draw a line between faith and reason, you are complicit with every other theist in allowing this kind of insanity to take place.  Once faith is allowed, it becomes the trump card of reason.

Enough with this.  Nobody has said this.  We have said, and continue to say, that FAITH is the foundation from which this kind of behavior can be justified.  Some will act insane.  Some will stay moderate.  Without faith, there is no justification, and we can end this charade where we have to genuflect before the people we despise simply because we can't attack their faith without invalidating our own.

Have you noticed that we have built a website?  It's called Rational Response Squad.  We have many authors who have written extensively on science, philosophy, religion, and critical thinking.  Daily, we engage in debates, write formed opinions, and keep readers updated on the latest discoveries in science.  We are allied with Margaret Downey, who just last week went to local schools to teach children about Thomas Paine and the history of freethinking.

Yeah, we're into education.

Now, one more time, I'm going to try to explain this to you.  Faith, the belief in a thing despite evidence to the contrary, is the foundation of religion.  All religion.  Every religion.  No exceptions.  The only difference between religions is where they draw the line between faith and reason.  The problem is that there's no logical way to do this because we've already allowed the notion that some things are beyond logic.  If that's true, how are we to logically know which things are beyond logic?  We can't.  That's why this crazy man is on the same footing as you.  You both believe in illogical things, and your only defense is to stand up and say, "Um... excuse  me, um... could you be a little more moderate please?"

Will you read, please?

After you've read, re-read, and then comprehend.  We have not said that everyone will become a crazy fundie.  Please try to comprehend this.  

Said the kettle to the pot.

Does he think the anaesthetist is gonna try and feel his wife up or something. My initial reaction to this type of story is anger then after 5 seconds it changes to feeling sad and pity. The beliefs really are backwards.

What about this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/shropshire/7078455.stm

Many of you seem to be making the assumption that this guy's behavior flows from faith; it does not. It flows from his cultural practice, but the BASIS of that practice is not faith, it is a moral precept. That is, Islam prides modesty and chastity; these are virtues that are considered good. To enforce those virtues, SOME Muslims (and I emphasize *some*, because there is a great deal of variation in Muslim belief and practice) feel that near-total separation of the sexes is in order. This is NOT an article of faith. I'd bet that this guy was Sunni and probably Hanbali. They have a very conservative view on the subject, but, again, their view flows entirely from their belief that chastity and modesty are important virtues. That is not a
religious perspective.

I know enough to know that anybody who would defend such insanity is likely as deluded as the perpetrator of the aforementioned  cruelty. The fact that he did it because of his religion and only permitted it after speaking to an imam proves that I am right and you are just defending that disgusting and cruel belief system.

K thx. 

I'm not defending his decision, or saying it's a good one. I'm just saying it's not because of his religious beliefs that he came to that conclusion. It's because of his particular cultural stance on a moral position. It's barmy to reduce the myriad of factors that went into him arriving at that position to "Islam". So he consulted with an imam - so what? That STILL doesn't make what he did an article of faith. It simply is not.

My larger point is that you're not going to get very far attributing all decisions to the failures of particular "belief systems". Religious proscriptions might underpin many ideas in some culture, but they can by no means account for all of them - else all non-religious cultures would be identical.

A worthwhile common example of this is female genital mutilation - almost exclusively a cultural practice, not a religious one; in fact, the religious verdict on the subject is universally one of condemnation (e.g. every authority at al-Azhar University in Egypt says FGM is decidedly un-Islamic and barbaric, but it is still widely practiced in Egypt). So what's the basis for the practice, then? Why is there FGM in Egypt and not in other places? Simply because some Egyptians believe that this is an appropriate or desirable way to control female sexuality.

In this case above, what you're taking offense to is not a religious belief, but a cultural one - that modesty should be prized above all else (even, in this case, health). It's fine to take offense over that, but we should call a spade a spade - removing religion from the equation need not modify the underlying cultural attitude that you despise.

Am I the only one here who see's the fallacy of "time"?

If someone wants to say the current state of the middle east is a threat based on Islam, I WOULD AGREE!

The only differance to me between Christianity and Islam is that Christianity has had a longer history of a Secular leash. This Mulsim's behaivor is no different to me than Christian doctors refusing to provide medical care based on religious objections.

Once again, the west has is hundreds of years ahead of the middle east as far as tollerance. But it still does not take away the fact that the "LION" Christianity is a sleeping lion merely on a leash because western society (so far) values more, personal freedom than defending a club. The mistake the west makes is that this will always be the case.

When you say Islam is "backwards" I agree. But Christianity has been just as backwards and still has its pockets of backwardness still competing for power. The threat to humanity is ignoring that the past can and does repeat itself.

I just saw a story on CNN about a Christian doctor who refused to provide aid to patients who asked for birth control. If he worked for a private hospital or was in private practice, as absurd as that view is, and as contrary to the hypocratic oath is, I would defend that right. But, if he is a doctor paid for by the tax payers, his fellow citizens should come first, not his personal belief.

One example of this plays out consistantly in the show MASH. Wounded would come in and North Korean wounded would come in occasionally too. The doctors oath is not to judge at that point, but to save lives. When someone is unarmed and not a threat to you personally, your politics and religion should always take second place to human empathy.

Is this Muslim a dickhead? HELL YEA! But I have seen just as much absurdity in assessing priorities by Christians in America. Here is what these idiots dont understand as theists. Unlike them, as an atheist, if I was a doctor and found out they were a theist, the hypocratic oath would compell me to care for them without judgement.

So again, when you claim Islam is worse. I wouldn't dissagree. I would just advise to take into account TIME PLACE AND CONTEXT. 

Great - On the one hand they don't want their daughters to go to school, on the other hand they don't want their wifes to be treated by a male docter.

Can anybody else see the small thought-error they are making?

from aboutnavellint:

ROFLMMFAO!! (I love using absurdly long netcronyms (yeah, I just made that up)... and parentheses)  

Am I the only one who finds the irony of that article in which it could be used to support anti-religious terrorism? 

As insane as all the abrahamic religions are they all allow most religious laws to be broken if human life is in danger, this is much about a shit culture as it is about religion

Yes, I know nurses at Thomas Jefferson Hospital in labor and delivery. You wouldn't believe what they have to put up with. I'll save the raisin stuck in the new borns' throat for another time

I'd say you are either employing Takeyya or you're completely misunderstanding the mind-control that comprises the basis of islam.

Under the concept of Takeyya it is legitimate for Muslims to act contrary to their faith, i.e. lie. The following actions are acceptable:

• Drink wine, abandon prayers, and skip fasting during Ramadan.
• Renounce belief in Allah.
• Kneel in homage to a deity other than Allah.
• Utter insincere oaths.

The dude is a muslim, asked his imam, and you're expecting us to believe he's not basing his decision on 'faith'?

You may be in the wrong forum.