Re: Dawkins:Religions Miguided Missiles

[Guest guest]

> But Dawkins shows his predjudice and ignorance by assuming all

religions have such notions of devaluing one's life and " death not

being the end " . And what the heck does he mean by " the Abrahamic

kind " ??? Excuse me if I find something goosebump-producing in such a

phrase. It sounds like a phrase skinhead hate-groups such as the

Aryan Nations would use. I can state quite positively that Judaism

does not have notions of afterlife rewards (nor afterlife punishments)

and does not in any way promote homicide for the faith, suicide

attacks, or self-imposed martyrdom; nor does it devalue life in any

way.

Hi Rita

I wondered what he meant too. Perhaps he meant religions where God

asks you to sacrifice your son and you comply not knowing it's just a

test. Can you tell me what Judaism does say about and afterlife, if

any? I've always been curious about this.

P.

[Guest guest]

> Actually, I (and hundreds of thousands, probably millions of

> other technically knowledgable people) could make such a control

> system with about a thousand dollars of hardware and appropriate

> programming. It would only take a laptop computer (and older used

one

> would be fine) and a GPS reciever.

Is it you or the laptop that would need programming? Both I hope!

IIRC the Exocet that destroyed HMS Sheffield in the Falklands War was

based around an old 8 bit 6502 processor. The first cruise missiles

used a not quite 16-bit 6809 - alas you are indeed correct.

> It's not hard to imagine an atheist, believing that when

he

> dies it's really the end, that he doesn't " go anywhere " , risking his

> life or going on a suicide mission for the belief in a 'better

good',

> for example, in fighting a war for his country. In this sense it's

> about belief, and not neccesarily religious belief.

True, but I think Dawkins is right that many religious beliefs make

such an act much more likely.

> The passengers on the flight that crashed in Philadelphia acted

in

> a way that may have hastened their deaths (if only by a few

minutes),

> but they chose to do so to save the lives of others. It can be

assumed

> that their religious beliefs were those of average Americans, and

would

> not have otherwise taken extreme actions. It's arguable that their

> actions had nothing to do with religion.

We know that they tried to overpower the terrrorists, not that they

crashed the plane deliberately. I think it is unlikely that the

*passengers or crew* crashed the plane deliberately. It is possible

it crashed accidentally as a result of the fighting on board, but,

more likely, I am sorry to say, it was crashed deliberately by the

terrorists when they realized they were about to lose control.

Remember, until Sept 11, merely destroying an American plane was a

more than good enough mission for them.

I'd be very surprised if religious thoughts did not occupy the

passengers' thoughts at that time. Generally the religious beliefs of

average Amercians are extremely strong in comaprison to other Western

countries for a start. Also, ones life in peril, particularly if

chosing to risk it, is very likely to make even a hardened atheist

mull over the possibilities. However, those very same religious

beliefs may have been part of what they did, to prevent yet further

loss of life, and to give them the courage to fight. So we see the

mirror image of religious belief, that it can be a strong force for

good. But then here of course is the irony. That notion of being

both willing to be killed and to kill is where we came in. The

terrorist believed they were doing it for a greater good too. The

problem with religion imo is that it tends to be a force to produce

extreme actions with minimal questioning. This can produce good or

bad effects, but its powerful and committed nature means that it is

like nuclear power - possible to contain it to produce cheap and safe

electricity for good perhaps, but also with deadly uses and an

intrinsically powerful and dangerous nature.

P.

>

> > Dawkins is professor of the public understanding of

science,

> >University of Oxford, and author of The Selfish Gene, The Blind

> >Watchmaker, and Unweaving the Rainbow.

>

> I tried reading The Blind Watchmaker. While I agree with the

ideas

> in the book and wanted to read his arguments, I found his writing

style

> so wordy and so patronizing (perhaps he was writing to

creationists...)

> that I quit reading about 1/3 the way through.

>

> ----------

> http://listen.to/benbradley

[Guest guest]

>

> Hard to say. When I was stuck in rehab, I was too depressed and

> angry to be horny much.

As will most ppl be at least initially. however, in rehab youre

usually not allowed any sexual expression, even w your regular

partner, even if theyre in there w you at the same time. Also of

course female sexuality *is* different from male. Many women are

" sleeping beauties " who feel little sexual frustration without a mate

but may miss live and affection, but who are " awakened " sexually by a

particular partner they love. However in the closeness and openness

of inpatient therapy, this can set up the coniditions for those

feelings to emerge. Male sexuality though similar has much more of an

" appetite " aspect to it seeking regular satisfaction, yet only once

did I hear another male talk about it, and then outside of a group

setting. He had an affair with a young girl he met there after they

left to the enragement of my sponsor who as a result was very happy to

refuse him back as a patient when he later relapsed. From her

own account, he by no means escaped injury from the affair either.

Most ppl when depressed lose their sexual and fodd appetites and have

difficulty sleeping, in my own case, my pattern is " hyteroid

dysphoria " where these are reversed - I oversleep, overeat and sexual

appetite increases.

> If so, I doubt it's a literal belief in getting your own 72 private

> beautiful virgins. Perhaps something more subtle, though, such

> as a belief that being a martyr in a jihad will impress the chicks

> (even though the individual actually wouldn't be alive to reap the

> rewards).

>

> Then again, who knows? Maybe these people really do believe

> that martyrs all get their own personal harem in a literal

afterlife.

> Religious extremists can take some pretty strange things literally.

I havent the slightest doubt that they believe this totally literally.

As a child I believed that I, along with millions of others,

regularly ate the actual flesh and drank the actual blood of a man who

died 2000 years ago after being born to a virgin (and who rose from

the dead three days later). The doctrine is clear - it might look and

taste like unleavend bread and wine, but it is literally the actually

body and blood of Christ. Religious views typically look absurd, and

often outrageous and disgusting to those outside the culture, yet they

are indeed literally believed by the adherants.

One thing I find odd is why 72? By curious coincidence, it is the

usual " par " or " standard scratch " for a course of that

quintessentially American sport golf, as well as the number of holes

played in a typical four round tournament. Actually I expect it is

somehow related to 6 * 12, i.e. another dodecalogical thing that a

certain other religion has a fixation with.

I expect a martyr-to-be has considerable kudos with real life Islamist

women before the mission, and is also probably let off normal

restrictions of celibacy or fidelity, married or unmarried. He may get

to clock up the 72 before he goes. Other restrictions probably go too

- I read with interest that a couple of the suspects appeared to drink

spirits heavily in the runup to the hijackings.

P.

[Guest guest]

Re: Dawkins:Religions Miguided Missiles

>

....

> But the vast majority of practitioners of ANY religion are not

fanatics or terrorists -> so blaming religion itself is fatuous and

insulting, as well as missing the point.

But the vast majority of fanatics and terrorists are ardent practitioners of

some religion. Moreover they tend to be fundamentalists and literalists.

That is, they are less likely to temper their religious beliefs by

subjecting them to some standard higher than religion, such as reason or

common decency and compassion for humanity.

In short, the one thing that distinguishes the fanatics is that they are

*more religious* than the others.

> Why not look at WHO tends to become a zealot, WHICH people volunteer for

suicide missions, >WHAT other factors are at play. Thre have been numerous

articles on the subject of who is >doing the suicide bombings, and all of

them find the same profile: a young man in his >twenties from an

impoverished family, who not only doesn't feel he has much to lose, but in

>most cases is promised that his family will receive substantial monetary

compensation.

But the individuals involved in last week's attack did not meet this

profile. And Osama bin Laden himself came from a well-to-do family involved

in the construction business in Saudi Arabia. A biography

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/bio.html suggests

that he was chiefly distinguished in his early career by devout religiosity

rather than any tendency toward violence.

> >

> > His basic point is valid. Terrorism by organized groups always involves

> > irrational zealotry. Acknowledging this factor publicly is a bit awkward

> > because because usually religion is at the root of it.

> >

> > --wally

> ----------------

>

> Sorry, I disagree. Religion becomes the excuse for people who

already have the tendency toward zealotry and toward violence. There is

deep rage based on centuries-old geographical and cultural rivalries, and

serious financial issues, involved.

>

> ~Rita

>

That may be, but I would much prefer that those with a tendency toward

zealotry and violence should go cause a disturbance at their local pub

rather than link up with a well-financed international conspiracy. Religion

is the means by which individuals share and organize their irrationality.

To shift gears slightly, the attack on America was an organized group

suicide as well as an act of violence against innocent people. A number of

group suicide events have made the news in recent decades, and as far as I

can recall they have all involved religious extremists. When was the last

time a large number of individuals killed themselves simultaneously for

other than religious reasons?

--wally

[Guest guest]

At 08:35 PM 9/19/01 +0000, you wrote:

> Also of

>course female sexuality *is* different from male. Many women are

> " sleeping beauties " who feel little sexual frustration without a mate

>but may miss live and affection, but who are " awakened " sexually by a

>particular partner they love.

Oh, drat. I had almost finished my little novella, and now you go and

tell me that it's ordinary. :-\

[Guest guest]

>

> In short, the one thing that distinguishes the fanatics is that

they are

> *more religious* than the others.

>

And there, I think, you have it. At their most fanatical, steppers

seem to be much MORE extreme (bizzarre) in their religious beliefs

than the norm - Most seem to worship an upmarket religious GOD, the

superior(?) of the more universal " Higher Power " . There is always a

desire to difference themselves from the hoi poloi, that makes it

difficult to distinguish them from religious fundamentalists. They

too can place very little value on (their own) life, seeming to live

only in anticipation of that ultimate accolade: " He died sober " . A

kind of martyrdom to their cause?

Yet, in the terrorists, I think we are deal a lot more with *power*.

The perpetrators of the recent acts need NOT have been unsuccessful -

the archetypal nerd or sexual inadequate, but rather someone looking

for an the (ultimate) power of life or death over others - In short,

quite a narcistic personality. A lot of these " get religion " , merely

to feed a need to feel superior to others. There is almost a " famous

for 5 minutes " quality about these acts. Many ancient religions did

believe immortality could ensured, merely by others speaking of them

after death. Of that they can be (sadly) almost assured. :-/

Mack

[Guest guest]

> ...

> > But the vast majority of practitioners of ANY religion are

not

> fanatics or terrorists -> so blaming religion itself is fatuous and

> insulting, as well as missing the point.

>

> But the vast majority of fanatics and terrorists are ardent

practitioners of

> some religion.

----------------

I don't know about that. Some of the very worst terroristic

homicidal " purges " in recent history have been conducted by ANTI-

religionists. CF. the Chinese Cultural Revolution mass murders of

scientists and intellectuals, by fanatical communists who disdained

all known religions and religious beliefs. There was

nothing " supernatural " in their ideology.

And how about the many hundreds of German " Aryan " citizens who

quite eagerly participated in the tortures and murders of their

fellow citizens who had the " disease " of Jewishness? Religion was

disdained by the Third Reich.

> Moreover they tend to be fundamentalists and literalists.

> That is, they are less likely to temper their religious beliefs by

> subjecting them to some standard higher than religion, such as

reason or

> common decency and compassion for humanity.

>

> In short, the one thing that distinguishes the fanatics is that

they are

> *more religious* than the others.

>

---------------

More deeply atached to a particular ideology, yes, perhaps

(keeping in mind that it need not be a religious ideology, as pointed

out above). But more explanation of WHY certain people exploit

ideological excuses for homicidal behavior is necessary than simply

dismissing it as " religious " .

> > >

> > > His basic point is valid. Terrorism by organized groups always

involves

> > > irrational zealotry. Acknowledging this factor publicly is a

bit awkward

> > > because because usually religion is at the root of it.

> > >

> > > --wally

> > ----------------

> >

> > Sorry, I disagree. Religion becomes the excuse for people

who

> already have the tendency toward zealotry and toward violence.

There is

> deep rage based on centuries-old geographical and cultural

rivalries, and

> serious financial issues, involved.

> >

> > ~Rita

> >

>

> That may be, but I would much prefer that those with a tendency

toward

> zealotry and violence should go cause a disturbance at their local

pub

> rather than link up with a well-financed international conspiracy.

Religion

> is the means by which individuals share and organize their

irrationality.

>

> To shift gears slightly, the attack on America was an organized

group

> suicide as well as an act of violence against innocent people. A

number of

> group suicide events have made the news in recent decades, and as

far as I

> can recall they have all involved religious extremists. When was

the last

> time a large number of individuals killed themselves simultaneously

for

> other than religious reasons?

>

-----------------

Well, on that point I'll have to concede -- mass suicides seem

to always be committed by lunatic offshoots of religions. But they

ARE lunatic offshoots. No standard religion encourages or even

allows suicide.

~Rita

> --wally

[Guest guest]

>

> Well, on that point I'll have to concede -- mass suicides seem

> to always be committed by lunatic offshoots of religions. But they

> ARE lunatic offshoots. No standard religion encourages or even

> allows suicide.

Shinto is hardly my speciality, but dont the Japanese have quite a

culture of suicide in response to dishonor, quite apart from the

Kamikaze ethic?

P.

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

> >

> > But the vast majority of fanatics and terrorists are ardent

> practitioners of

> > some religion.

>

> ----------------

>

> I don't know about that. Some of the very worst terroristic

> homicidal " purges " in recent history have been conducted by ANTI-

> religionists. CF. the Chinese Cultural Revolution mass murders of

> scientists and intellectuals, by fanatical communists who disdained

> all known religions and religious beliefs. There was

> nothing " supernatural " in their ideology.

Yes, I realized after I sent that that 'vast majority' was an overstatement.

Substitute 'many.' And I wasn't thinking so much of acts by government

against their own populations as acts by independent groups against

civilians, intended specifically to induce terror in the population at

large.

I did have in mind our domestic terrorists who bomb abortion clinics and

murder physicians, where the religious motivation is the main thing. As for

McVeigh and the militia types, I don't really know -- I have a vague

impression of fundamentalist Christianity being part of their mind-set, but

I could be mistaken.

Of course the Weathermen, Red Brigades, and so on of the 70's wouldn't be

considered religious unless you stretch the definition of religion to

include radical Marxism. There has also been some arson, tree-spiking, stuff

that potentially endangers innocent people, by radical environmentalists,

who aren't religious.

I don't know how much generalizations matter any more. The attack on the

World Trade Centers was unprecedented in its scope and ferocity. The role

played by religion in that attack is obvious, and I think that to ignore it

is dangerous. Carelessness in the US response could indeed provoke a more

widespread and deeper hatred of the US in the Islamic world. The result

could be really really bad.

[snip]

> > In short, the one thing that distinguishes the fanatics is that

> they are

> > *more religious* than the others.

> >

> ---------------

>

> More deeply atached to a particular ideology, yes, perhaps

> (keeping in mind that it need not be a religious ideology, as pointed

> out above). But more explanation of WHY certain people exploit

> ideological excuses for homicidal behavior is necessary than simply

> dismissing it as " religious " .

I have a slight problem with this line of thought, though I'm not sure I can

articulate it clearly. Consider the parallel line: " More explanation of why

certain people get lung cancer is necessary than simply dismissing it as

caused by cigarette smoking. " It's a valid point, but not a good defense of

smoking. With terrorism, it is certainly true that we need a better

understanding, but I fear that we may never get it if we are afraid to

confront the religious aspect.

--wally

[Guest guest]

>There has also been some arson, tree-spiking, stuff

> that potentially endangers innocent people, by radical

>environmentalists,

> who aren't religious.

There seems to be fair bit of Paganism among Greenies, though no

doubt the great majority of Pagans (and Greens) totally abhor

violence. Also many Greens seem to have turned Lovelock's Gaia

theory into a religion, extending it beyond its basis in planetology

and evolutionary biology (in which I think is extremely plausible,

btw) to making the Earth almost a sentient creature or GOd in a way

that he would decry. Again no doubt the great majority of these

folks would decry the use of violence.

P.

[Guest guest]

I agree with your view that religion does not couse anything. How the

person percieves the beliefs and teachings is what really should be viewed

here. Religious fundamentalism. It is a belief not a religion. A specific

way of interpreting the specific religion. Today I had a thought on Falwell

and his followers across the nation. Dos terrorism of this magnatude and

caus e exist in our country? Well, it has for a while. People in his

congregation and Pat on's all use fear to influence people's

thoughts. On top of this, they have given a religious justification to

certain beliefs and actions. I do not know for sure, but have a pretty good

idea that they would not condemn a bombing of an abortion clinic, which is a

terrorist act. I can almost guarantee that some of the people who

perpetrated these acts of violence are in some way conected to Falwell or

other christian fundamentalist groups. In this great nation you have the

freedom to believe in what you want, until that belief is acted upon in a

violent or deviant way.

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Dawkins:Religions Miguided Missiles

>Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 09:51:48 -0400

>

>At 12:24 AM 9/19/01 -0000, watts_pete@... wrote:

> >

> >A guided missile corrects its trajectory as it flies, homing in, say,

> >on

> >the heat of a jet plane's exhaust. A great improvement on a simple

> >ballistic shell, it still cannot discriminate particular targets. It

> >could not zero in on a designated New York skyscraper if launched from

> >as far away as Boston.

> >That is precisely what a modern " smart missile " can do. Computer

> >miniaturisation has advanced to the point where one of today's smart

> >missiles could be programmed with an image of the Manhattan skyline

> >together with instructions to home in on the north tower of the World

> >Trade Centre. Smart missiles of this sophistication are possessed by

> >the

> >United States, as we learned in the Gulf war, but they are

> >economically

> >beyond ordinary terrorists and scientifically beyond theocratic

> >governments. Might there be a cheaper and easier alternative?

>

> Actually, I (and hundreds of thousands, probably millions of

>other technically knowledgable people) could make such a control

>system with about a thousand dollars of hardware and appropriate

>programming. It would only take a laptop computer (and older used one

>would be fine) and a GPS reciever.

>

> >Our leaders have described the recent atrocity with the customary

> >cliche: mindless cowardice. " Mindless " may be a suitable word for the

> >vandalising of a telephone box. It is not helpful for understanding

> >what

> >hit New York on September 11. Those people were not mindless and they

> >were certainly not cowards.

>

> I agree with this, calling them mindless cowards is just name calling.

>

> >It came from religion. Religion is also, of course, the underlying

> >source of the divisiveness in the Middle East which motivated the use

> >of

> >this deadly weapon in the first place. But that is another story and

> >not

> >my concern here. My concern here is with the weapon itself. To fill a

> >world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like

> >littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they

> >are

> >used.

>

> I can see how Dawkins comes up with this, but there's a lot wrong

>with this. It's not hard to imagine an atheist, believing that when he

>dies it's really the end, that he doesn't " go anywhere " , risking his

>life or going on a suicide mission for the belief in a 'better good',

>for example, in fighting a war for his country. In this sense it's

>about belief, and not neccesarily religious belief.

> The passengers on the flight that crashed in Philadelphia acted in

>a way that may have hastened their deaths (if only by a few minutes),

>but they chose to do so to save the lives of others. It can be assumed

>that their religious beliefs were those of average Americans, and would

>not have otherwise taken extreme actions. It's arguable that their

>actions had nothing to do with religion.

>

> > Dawkins is professor of the public understanding of science,

> >University of Oxford, and author of The Selfish Gene, The Blind

> >Watchmaker, and Unweaving the Rainbow.

>

> I tried reading The Blind Watchmaker. While I agree with the ideas

>in the book and wanted to read his arguments, I found his writing style

>so wordy and so patronizing (perhaps he was writing to creationists...)

>that I quit reading about 1/3 the way through.

>

>----------

>http://listen.to/benbradley

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

Oh Rita, grow up already.

>

> > I am trying to call attention to the elephant in the

> > room

> > that everybody is too polite - or too devout - to notice:

religion,

> > and

> > specifically the devaluing effect that religion has on human

life. I

> > don't mean devaluing the life of others (though it can do that

too),

> > but

> > devaluing one's own life. Religion teaches the dangerous

nonsense that

> > death is not the end.

> >

> ....

>

> > My concern here is with the weapon itself. To fill a

> > world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like

> > littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if

they

> > are

> > used.

> >

> -----------------

>

> But Dawkins shows his predjudice and ignorance by assuming

all religions have such notions of devaluing one's life and " death

not being the end " . And what the heck does he mean by " the

Abrahamic kind " ??? Excuse me if I find something goosebump-

producing in such a phrase. It sounds like a phrase skinhead hate-

groups such as the Aryan Nations would use. I can state quite

positively that Judaism does not have notions of afterlife rewards

(nor afterlife punishments) and does not in any way promote homicide

for the faith, suicide attacks, or self-imposed martyrdom; nor does

it devalue life in any way. Nor do most religions with which I am

familiar promote such things, INCLUDING ISLAM. I have seen numerous

quotes from the Koran from Muslims: " Do not destroy life, which

Allah has made sacred... " The majority of Muslims are horrified at

the events and do not in any way support the ideology of the perons

responsible -- they are considered to be traitors to Islam.

>

> It is foolish to substitute a war between atheists and the

faithful for a war between different faiths. Both are hate-

promoting and immoral, and both miss the point and divert from the

path of peace.

> ~Rita

[Guest guest]

> Oh Rita, grow up already.

>

---------------

I don't understand your remark. Could you elaborate?

~Rita

[Guest guest]

>

> > Oh Rita, grow up already.

> >

> ---------------

>

> I don't understand your remark. Could you elaborate?

>

> ~Rita

No. I can't. You were probably in XA for a few years, and

finally you got deprogrammed. Deprogramming you from your religion

seems to be close to impossible. You've been Jewish for your whole

life; you were a stepper for only a fraction of it. My elaborating

at this point would be a waste of my time.

[Guest guest]

> >

> > > Oh Rita, grow up already.

> > >

> > ---------------

> >

> > I don't understand your remark. Could you elaborate?

> >

> > ~Rita

>

> No. I can't. You were probably in XA for a few years, and

> finally you got deprogrammed. Deprogramming you from your religion

> seems to be close to impossible. You've been Jewish for your whole

> life; you were a stepper for only a fraction of it. My elaborating

> at this point would be a waste of my time.

----------------

I was never a stepper and have had no need for " deprogramming " from either

Steppism or from Judaism. I have no idea why you are insulting me and this

entire list with your recent bizarre pronouncements and imperious orders to

engage in what you declare to be " correct " thinking and " correct " activities.

Read my lips, please: THIS IS A DISCUSSION LIST! Those of us who have

participated in the various religion threads or in any other threads for that

matter, have been doing exactly what the list is intended for! These

discussions are clearly not " pointless " for those of us who have been engaging

in them. If you desire some other activity or some other type of list, GO

THERE!

Have a nice day.

~Rita

[Guest guest]

No words in that post are mine Jan, and I missed your point. Yes,

I guess you are one of those who suggest I move to Afghanistan since

I don't want it nuked. And I will never lie about Americans being

one religion (that's a lie), one people (that's a lie - it's almost

300 million people) or one race (that is evidently a lie).

> " Cool Guy " - like who really thinks you are,

> Try and think of Americans as one race, one religion, one people.

Otherwise,

> MOVE.

> Jan

>

> In a message dated 9/23/01 9:12:48 AM Central Standard Time,

> cool_guy@s... writes:

>

> << It sounds like a phrase skinhead hate-

> groups such as the Aryan Nations would use. I can state quite

> positively that Judaism does not have notions of afterlife

rewards

> (nor afterlife punishments) and does not in any way promote

homicide

> for the faith, suicide attacks, or self-imposed martyrdom; nor

does

> it devalue life in any way. Nor do most religions with which I

am

> familiar promote such things, INCLUDING ISLAM. I have seen

numerous

> quotes from the Koran from Muslims: " Do not destroy life, which

> Allah has made sacred... " The majority of Muslims are horrified

at

> the events and do not in any way support the ideology of the

perons

> responsible -- they are considered to be traitors to Islam.

> >

> > It is foolish to substitute a war between atheists and the

> faithful for a war between different faiths. Both are hate-

> promoting and immoral, and both miss the point and divert from

the

> path of peace. >>

[Guest guest]

>

> > Oh Rita, grow up already.

> >

> ---------------

>

> I don't understand your remark. Could you elaborate?

>

> ~Rita

> >>

[Guest guest]

> > " Cool Guy " - like who really thinks you are,

> > Try and think of Americans as one race, one religion, one people.

> Otherwise,

> > MOVE.

> > Jan

> >

> > In a message dated 9/23/01 9:12:48 AM Central Standard Time,

> > cool_guy@s... writes:

> >

> > << It sounds like a phrase skinhead hate-

> > groups such as the Aryan Nations would use. I can state quite

> > positively that Judaism does not have notions of afterlife

> rewards

> > (nor afterlife punishments) and does not in any way promote

> homicide

> > for the faith, suicide attacks, or self-imposed martyrdom; nor

> does

> > it devalue life in any way. Nor do most religions with which I

> am

> > familiar promote such things, INCLUDING ISLAM. I have seen

> numerous

> > quotes from the Koran from Muslims: " Do not destroy life, which

> > Allah has made sacred... " The majority of Muslims are horrified

> at

> > the events and do not in any way support the ideology of the

> perons

> > responsible -- they are considered to be traitors to Islam.

> > >

> > > It is foolish to substitute a war between atheists and the

> > faithful for a war between different faiths. Both are hate-

> > promoting and immoral, and both miss the point and divert from

> the

> > path of peace. >>

[Guest guest]

>

> > No words in that post are mine Jan, and I missed your point.

Yes,

> > I guess you are one of those who suggest I move to Afghanistan

since

> > I don't want it nuked. And I will never lie about Americans

being

> > one religion (that's a lie), one people (that's a lie - it's

almost

> > 300 million people) or one race (that is evidently a lie).

> >

> ------------------

>

> Actually I agree with all the positions you state above, and

the words misattributed to you below by Jan were mine. I do not

want Afghanistan (or anywhere else) nuked either, and I do not

support any war of the type Bush and our government appear to be

describing.

I know we are both sensible people.

> ly you baffle me and I'm not going to spend any more

time responding to you until and unless you're ready to engage in

intelligent and courteous discussion.

OK.

> ~Rita

[Guest guest]

Hi Rita, you wrote: I don't know about that. Some of the very worst

terroristic

homicidal " purges " in recent history have been conducted by ANTI-

religionists. CF. the Chinese Cultural Revolution mass murders . . .

I agree. I can think of Stalin - didn't he cleanse Russia of

millions; Pol Pot - about 1.5 million in Cambodia.

For all the talk about persecution and homocide caused by religious

(and usually Chrisitanity is the main culprit), I read something

recently (and wish I could remember where I read it - I'll have to do

some research) the numbers of deaths caused by, for instance, the

Crusades, never came near the number of deaths caused by regimes that

could not be categorized as Islamic, Jewish or Christian. Even our

own infamous Salem witch trials by the religious Puritans only caused

around 10-14 deaths. (I'm not trying to pin medals on the Crusaders

or Puritans - just putting the numbers in perspective; any death of

innocents is despicable.)

And to the rest of you, it's me - Jan Young from Pittsburgh, PA.

I've been with 12-step-free since 1998 but haven't written in over a

year and a half here. Good to see familiar names (Ben, Rita, and

good ol' Pete!) and new ones.

I read another forum and it's sometimes hard to get to both! And

around 8:45 am on 9/11, I barely turned on my computer. I could not

pull myself away from the television. Sometimes I still shake my

head in disbelief. I'm not much of a fighter or revenge seeker but I

could stand to see a public hanging for Mr. Binladen. Does anyone

else here still come close to tears when we see a family member of a

victim with their picture clutched closely and their sad, trying to

be hopeful, faces?

To the ones here I haven't met and the very new ones, like I said,

I've been a member of 12-step-free since 1998. I quit going to AA

about 2 1/2 years ago or so after attending meetings for 8 years. As

a matter of fact, I drink socially now. I don't feel like getting

drunk. And I have yet to get drunk. Stanton Peele says it very

well - that many of us mature out of our irresponsible drinking

habits. I find that most people who keep going to zillions of AA

meetings a week are afraid to grow up. AA is their mommy and daddy.

Well gang, hope to contribute more often. Glad to be back with the

best and brightest!

Jan

[Guest guest]

The bombers of abortion clinics are of the same ilk as terrorists who

use and abuse the Islamic religion and were behind the 9/11/01

attacks. These abortion clinic terrorists claim they are Christians,

but like most Muslims in America condemn and don't want to be

associated with Bin Laden and his gang, most Christians don't want to

be put in the same basket with these type of terrorists. I doubt

very much that Falwell has anything to do with abortion clinic murder

and mahem and I have heard on speak out harshly many times

against these actions. Fundamentalism is not always equal to

violence. (In any event, Falwell and on are still idiots for

what they said about the attacks having something to do gays,

abortion and whatever else they listed.)

[Guest guest]

I don't know about that. Some of the very

worst

> terroristic

> homicidal " purges " in recent history have been conducted by ANTI-

> religionists. CF. the Chinese Cultural Revolution mass

murders . . .

>

> I agree. I can think of Stalin - didn't he cleanse Russia of

> millions; Pol Pot - about 1.5 million in Cambodia.

I remember some 6-10 million killed by Christians... I am sure

Rita does too.

> For all the talk about persecution and homocide caused by

religious

> (and usually Chrisitanity is the main culprit), I read something

> recently (and wish I could remember where I read it - I'll have to

do

> some research) the numbers of deaths caused by, for instance, the

> Crusades, never came near the number of deaths caused by regimes

that

> could not be categorized as Islamic, Jewish or Christian. Even

I think we are all aware that humans don't require religion as an

excuse for being mean to each other or as a " cause " for killing

others, but it is commonly used as such. Further, religion doesn't

do much to prevent such things. As AA requires duplicity and the

victims' ignorance to thrive, so do religions, and as such,

religions do not attempt to enlighten followers. And the key to

thwarting people senselessly killing each other is enlightenment.

> Does anyone

> else here still come close to tears when we see a family member of

a

> victim with their picture clutched closely and their sad, trying

to

> be hopeful, faces?

Yes, I just saw one of those... they are pretty common and still

saddening... I suppose they always will be to an extent (unless our

future horrors are so incredible that they pale the pain of this

event). Fortunately, however, those pictures are more common than

pictures of smashed up jumpers - one of those was plenty.

> drunk. And I have yet to get drunk. Stanton Peele says it very

> well - that many of us mature out of our irresponsible drinking

> habits. I find that most people who keep going to zillions of AA

> meetings a week are afraid to grow up. AA is their mommy and

daddy.

Our Father? Grow up? Hmm.

[Guest guest]

You know, if you TRIED to be more of an asshole, I'd doubt succeed. I have

immensely enjoyed Rita's posts with regard to her religious background. Why

don't you, in a secular way, fuck off and go to hell?

Jan

In a message dated 9/23/01 11:59:07 AM Central Standard Time,

rita66@... writes:

<< > No. I can't. You were probably in XA for a few years, and

> finally you got deprogrammed. Deprogramming you from your religion

> seems to be close to impossible. You've been Jewish for your whole

> life; you were a stepper for only a fraction of it. My elaborating

> at this point would be a waste of my time.

>>