- May 13, 2009
- 1,862
- 343
- 11,180
I'm uncomfortable with the notion that some Muslims seemingly claim the right to kill other (non-Muslim) people because of supposed-offense to their god.
"Unidentified armed men stormed the grounds overnight amid uproar among Muslims over a film produced in the US said to insult the Prophet Muhammad.
They shot at buildings and threw handmade bombs into the compound."
My gut reaction is why should any non-Muslim be sensitive to or understanding of, let alone deferential to a religion that - in this modern age - can be utilized to justify the attack on a US consulate and the murder of four US citizens - including the ambassador? B/c I've posted the above editorial cartoon, would it be OK for a practitioner of Islam to kill me now?
Islam seems incompatible w/ modernity, if in 2012 its practitioners literally think it a-ok to KILL anyone who "insults" their "prophet." By extension, wouldn't Christians be able to justify - in this modern age - killing all Muslims b/c they're pagan heathens? Good enough for the goose = good enough for the gander?
All b/c someone "insulted" your Prophet? Seriously?
Then, on the topic of religion in politics, "overexposure of religion in politics is a danger on multiple fronts.
First, politics should be separate from religion: When you have religious leaders running a nation, laws will gradually shift to support the tenants of that religion. This, as we see in the fundamentalist Muslim world, will greatly interfere with free speech and personal freedoms, and will stamp out any religion or belief system not belonging to those in power.
Second, leaders of our country should have a good understanding of science and logic: Knowing science is not simply memorizing facts. One who understands how science works is one who understands the scientific method and critical thought. Both of those skills are used in other aspects of life, and – yes – controlling a country. These skills allow one to make decisions based on evidence, facts, logic and reality.
Do we really want elected leaders running our country based on their subjective interpretation of faith, rather than critical thought? Do we want our leaders to act as if their decisions are supported by the will of their particular god? Is it right to base policies in a belief system that can’t be proven?
Believe in whatever god you prefer. You have that right. So do I. But those beliefs shouldn’t be used to justify public policy. What candidates believe shouldn’t be under trial in a public forum, except for those aspects which involve them running their country.
I’d prefer to imagine an elective process contrary to what we have now. Critical thought and science education should be emphasized, and should not fall to the wayside behind religious pandering and supernatural defenses of political positions."
But back to those cartoons and "offensive' representations of some imaginary guy who may or may not have been real:
"Unidentified armed men stormed the grounds overnight amid uproar among Muslims over a film produced in the US said to insult the Prophet Muhammad.
They shot at buildings and threw handmade bombs into the compound."
My gut reaction is why should any non-Muslim be sensitive to or understanding of, let alone deferential to a religion that - in this modern age - can be utilized to justify the attack on a US consulate and the murder of four US citizens - including the ambassador? B/c I've posted the above editorial cartoon, would it be OK for a practitioner of Islam to kill me now?
Islam seems incompatible w/ modernity, if in 2012 its practitioners literally think it a-ok to KILL anyone who "insults" their "prophet." By extension, wouldn't Christians be able to justify - in this modern age - killing all Muslims b/c they're pagan heathens? Good enough for the goose = good enough for the gander?
All b/c someone "insulted" your Prophet? Seriously?
Then, on the topic of religion in politics, "overexposure of religion in politics is a danger on multiple fronts.
First, politics should be separate from religion: When you have religious leaders running a nation, laws will gradually shift to support the tenants of that religion. This, as we see in the fundamentalist Muslim world, will greatly interfere with free speech and personal freedoms, and will stamp out any religion or belief system not belonging to those in power.
Second, leaders of our country should have a good understanding of science and logic: Knowing science is not simply memorizing facts. One who understands how science works is one who understands the scientific method and critical thought. Both of those skills are used in other aspects of life, and – yes – controlling a country. These skills allow one to make decisions based on evidence, facts, logic and reality.
Do we really want elected leaders running our country based on their subjective interpretation of faith, rather than critical thought? Do we want our leaders to act as if their decisions are supported by the will of their particular god? Is it right to base policies in a belief system that can’t be proven?
Believe in whatever god you prefer. You have that right. So do I. But those beliefs shouldn’t be used to justify public policy. What candidates believe shouldn’t be under trial in a public forum, except for those aspects which involve them running their country.
I’d prefer to imagine an elective process contrary to what we have now. Critical thought and science education should be emphasized, and should not fall to the wayside behind religious pandering and supernatural defenses of political positions."
But back to those cartoons and "offensive' representations of some imaginary guy who may or may not have been real:
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram