PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
The Holy Trinity of Marx, Lenin and Engels. I think the death toll from this exquisitely atheistic and
secular philosophy/religion took about 150 million lives.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Pakistan wants "Freedom to Kill Freedom of Speech" in name of "Freedom of Religion"
secular philosophy/religion took about 150 million lives.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Notanumber
A Free Man
Is it still current?
Did they borrow the idea of using religion for political aims from Islam?
Tears of Jihad - Political Islam
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Not really a religion, per se. If we're including state driven stuff as well, capitalism is right up there, considering the numbers of dead from the New World Conquest... or can those deaths be ignored because they were long ago and didn't really affect our cultural forebears? Also about 40 million of the deaths offten attributed to Communism were actually due to Axis power fascists, although they often get pinned on Stalin because he was in charge at the time. Similar things happen when looking at Mao's body count. The Chinese Civil War was extremely bloody, but is it really accurate to pin all those deaths on one side? Culpability in these things is often more complex than a nice ideology confirming "the ideology I hate did the bad thing in a vacuum".
Pretty sure the estimates of deaths under the Mongol invasions are right up there, too, but I'd have to look it up.
Maybe the lesson here is that ideologies and religions aren't violent, people are, and will try to use ideology/religion as either justification or simplistic explanation?
Edit:looks like the general estimates for the Mongol invasions are ~ 40, 000, 000 also worth mentioning the Tai Ping rebellion in China in the 1800s, which was led by a nominal Christian, and led to an estimated ~30-40, 000, 000 civilian deaths.
Last edited:
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
I think you just summarised The Passion so we don't actually need to imagine anything. Unless I'm mistaken Christians loved that film.
Why would it not be okay for society to give the holy figure of one faith the same critique, mockery and disparaging treatment it gives to figures from every other faith? The mere act of drawing Muhammad (whether disparagingly or not) is offensive to Muslims but that's not a good enough reason to not do it; there's no right to not be offended.
It isn't insulting or gratuitously offensive yet there's a disturbingly large number of Muslims who believe we must refrain from making similarly non-offensive drawings because their religion forbids it. Look at Nanda's posts in this thread for an example of such an attitude.
The whole point of these 'draw Muhammad' events (even if some take the opportunity to be as gratuitously insulting as possible) is to highlight both the right to free speech and the right to freedom from religion i.e. that while Islam may forbid Muslims from depicting Muhammad, we non-Muslims are not obliged to obey or pay heed to any such rules - especially not in our own countries. And likewise, if the very notion of non-Muslims drawing Muhammad is so offensive to them, Muslims do not need to look.
This doesn't make a lick of sense. You wish a disturbed mental state on the guy for the sake of a drawing or two? Nice.
Last edited:
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
The Catholic League and some other Catholics were outraged by that episode. Wanna take a guess if they issued death threats over it?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I'm not sure if they are terrorist, as clearly this group doesn't have the ultra-conservative leanings that Muslim terrorist groups adhere to.Bedouins\terrorists
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
FYI, Lenin was more inspired by others than Marx and Engels, and if you'd care to take time to read Marx he didn't spend much time writing about what his Communist state would look like or how to get there. One of the biggest problems with Classic Marxism is that it leaves in many blanks for any aspiring Marxist leader to fill in - and that's if he's a primary inspiration. As for those such as Stalin and Mao, they were not acting on Secularism, but upon total state control and total obedience to the state (Marxism itself lacks a state - it just doesn't tell us how exactly to get there). And that you put in "/religion" only shows that you have much to learn on the subject before you can launch a well reasoned criticism against them because religion certainly didn't play a role for an ideology that declares religion to be the opium of the masses.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Also kind of worth pointing out that "educated and cultured", and "terrorist " are not exclusive terms.
That is quite the tired strawman, and I hope that you realize that.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
I don't count Hitler's war, or the Civil War in China (though the latter
should be counted) but this is counting Stalin and Lenin's executions/
political famines/gulags, plus China's "cultural revolution" which basically
starved the country.
Hitler's mother was a devout Catholic
Stalin studied to be an Orthodox minister
Pol Pot wanted to be a Buddhist monk
Mao was a Confucian.
etc..
Where would the world be if these monsters had stayed with their
religions? I doubt you would see a Catholic vs. Orthodox world war,
or a Confucius vs Buddhist holocaust.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Bin Laden definitely fit both. As do Saudi princes who fund terrorist groups. The lady in the photo though is too "naked" to be Saudi.
Shad
Veteran Member
Has there be a thread like that?
Your comment is bizarre. Do you think I am a Christian or something?
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Thankyou....... and there it is......
And so I wouldn't expect any Christian of any Denomination to support insulting and upsetting cartoons, poems, or anything else about ...... any other cultures, religions, nationalities etc etc.
Nice touch.......... KF (
)
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Not even close to what I had in mind.
Rubbish......... Crazy......... It's provocative and hateful.
That would probably be very offensive to many Muslims because Mohammed didn't want his features spread everywhere, did not want to be idolised in any way.
Can any Muslims support this point? I think I'm right.
Dreadful. Ignorant idea, in my opinion.
Imagine encouraging idiots to draw, say, Moses in various insulting poses, or whatever. You see? It should all be Taboo.
Huh? You got that wrong.......... he's already in a disturbed mental state to think this drivvle up.
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
It's not inaccurate though, is it?
There have been derogatory depictions of Jesus in the past. I know Charlie Hebdo did one of the members of the Trinity having anal sex with one another. The interesting thing is Christians didn't start rioting or killing people or threatening violence because of it.
Why?
Undoubtedly some use the day to be provocative and hateful but you can't divorce drawing Muhammad from its historical context: that would be to protest Islamist attempts to force non-Muslims to act according to Islamic belief by using violence or threats of violence as a coercive force.
I can't help if they're offended by a non-derogatory picture in a neutral setting. What I can do (and have done) is post the picture in such a way that means anybody who doesn't want to look is not forced to do so.
What would you suggest as an alternative method of refusing to be forced to live according to Islamic rules?
Poor analogy; Jewish people aren't in the habit of murdering or threatening people who depict them or their sacred figures in a derogatory way so there's no reason to do it. Muslims, on the other hand...
I could not disagree more. There's no reason to taboo or outlaw depicting Muhammad, no matter how offensive it gets. Banning drawings of Muhammad would be allowing terrorism to work and signalling that we're okay with submitting to another religion's rules.
Wilders didn't think it up; drawing Muhammad has been around for years.
Last edited:
Notanumber
A Free Man
This makes you wonder just what are they teaching our children in western education establishments.
Debunking The Golden Age Of Islam #1: Why 1001 Inventions Exhibition Is An Exercise in Cultural Propaganda!
Debunking The Golden Age Of Islam #1: Why 1001 Inventions Exhibition Is An Exercise in Cultural Propaganda!
stvdv
Veteran Member
Check her eyebrows, Big strong eyebrows. Must be Saudi IMO
You must be wrong here. Her name is Ameera al-Taweel [Princess Amira]. Looks Saudi to me, at least she has some Saudi connections.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Women in Saudi Arabia are required to wear the abaya, and she's definitely not wearing one.Check her eyebrows, Big strong eyebrows. Must be Saudi IMO
You must be wrong here. Her name is Ameera al-Taweel [Princess Amira]. Looks Saudi to me, at least she has some Saudi connections.
stvdv
Veteran Member
I gave you even her name, still you don't believe. But in case you don't have google, here are her details. She might not wear the abaya, but she definitely is Saudi Arabian.
Ameera al-Taweel
Geboren: 6 november 1983 (34 jaar), Riyad, Saoedi-Arabië
Echtgenoot: Al-Waleed bin Talal al-Saoed (geh. 2008–2013)
Ouders: Aidan bin Nayef Al-Taweel
Huis: Huis van Saoed
Opleiding: University of New Haven
Organisatie opgericht: Alwaleed Philanthropies
Riyad is de grootste stad van Saoedi-Arabië, waar het ook de hoofdstad van is. De stad ligt centraal in het land op een groot plateau, bekend als de Nadjd. Ze telt ca. 5,7 miljoen inwoners