Bill Maher - " All religions are not alike " .

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
So, thousands of years of marriage between 1 man and 1 woman isn't sound reasons enough, huh? Left wanting, in your view, is it ?

---

Yes. And 1man+1woman was hardly the only form of marriage practiced for thousands of years. Polygamy was plenty popular for a looooong time. Plus, the basic form of how marriage was practiced: Parents selling a barely pubescent girl to another man. Or, joy, paying him to take her. It used to be more of a property exchange. Marriage, as it currently stands in Western societies, is well-evolved from most of what was traditionally practiced. The contrast within what heterosexual marriage used to be compared to now is greater to me than that of modern-day hetero to same-sex marriage.

Quote:

---

And not being in favor of same sex marriage is only about homophobia, is that right ? Way to falsely frame the position of those with which you disagree.

---

I have yet to hear an argument against same-sex marriage that holds up solid. So I suspect it comes down to a general disapproval of homosexuality or religious appropriation of the term, since I don't find it based in solid logic.

And I'll amend to "religion-based" or even general homophobia if that's what irks you.

Quote:

---

What about Islamic based homophobia ? ( remember the issue for which this thread was started ? ) Why'd you omit that ? Are you a religious bigot ? Oh yeah, it seems you are.

---

It was an oversight. I was taking on the perspective of the argument within Western societies and Christianity is the dominant religion there. I agree that any homophobia, religious or otherwise, is bad.

Quote:

---

Same sex partnerships which support family values can just as easily be achieved w/ out changing the definition of marriage.

---

But why? It's the same thing. It creates an artificial division between the concepts.

Quote:

---

Hell, you could come up w/ good reasons why marriage itself poses risks for those involved, if you're willing to travel down that rabbit hole.

---

I'm open to that discussion. I personally favor the institution of marriage but everyone is free to make arguments against it. Since marriage is a voluntary, privileged institution, though, you find the more relevant discussion revolving around access to it, not protection from it.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Rabbis Will Defy Law on Circumcision Ritual

Ultra-Orthodox rabbis in New York City say if a proposed law requiring parental consent for a circumcision ritual linked to two infant deaths is enacted they will defy it.

During the ritual, called metzitzah b’peh, a mohel removes the foreskin and uses his mouth to stop the bleeding. At least 11 New York infants are thought to have contracted herpes from the practice, two of whom died and two of whom have irreversible brain damage, according to the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

But rabbis insist 5,000-year-old ritual is safe, and say they refuse to tell parents there are any health risks.

“This is the government forcing a rabbi practicing a religious ritual to tell his congregants it could hurt their child,” said Rabbi David Niederman, executive director of the United Jewish Organization of Williamsburg. “If, God forbid, there was a danger, we would be the first to stop the practice.”

Niederman said the research linking metzitzah b’peh to infant deaths is “full of holes,” adding that the ritual is performed safely “tens of thousands of times a year” worldwide, and that babies who aren’t circumcised can also acquire herpes shortly after birth.

“We are convinced that the data is flawed and there’s no risk whatsoever,” he said, adding that “safeguarding the life of an infant” is one of the Torah’s most important principles.

Most modern mohels remove the blood with a sterile pipette. But about two-thirds of boys born in New York City’s Hasidic communities, who are ultra-Orthodox, are circumcised in the oral suction manner, Rabbi David Zwiebel, executive vice president of the Orthodox Jewish organization Agudath Israel of America, told ABC News in March.

The Department of Health argues parents should be informed of the risks before making a decision. Since 2004, it has received “multiple complaints from parents who were not aware that direct oral suction was going to be performed as part of their sons’ circumcisions,” according to a public notice.

The law would require mohels to explain the oral suction procedure and its risks, including the possible transmission of herpes simplex virus, and have parents sign a waiver.

Niederman said the government should “do what they feel is right” and advise against the ritual if they think there’s a risk.

“But don’t put it on the mohel,” he said. “Don’t force parents to sign something that is against their religious beliefs.”

The city’s Health Department is scheduled to vote on the proposed law Sept. 13. But Niederman worries a vote to enact the law would force rabbis, who are “among the most law-abiding citizens,” to put their religious beliefs first.

“When it comes to the law, we are all there – it’s our obligation, according to our religion. But not when the law goes against our religion,” he said.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/09/03/rabbis-will-defy-law-on-
circumcision-ritual/

---

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

#!


On this point, his words are undeniable.

Yes, in history, most if not all religions have their 'fringe' element, who'll commit unspeakable acts.

But we don't live 500 or 1200 years ago. We live in the NOW. And NOW, there's only one religion that is far more likely than not to murder you for not believing in or respecting THEIR way. Doesn't mean everyone who is Muslim will do that, but of the top 10 or top 100 acts of violence committed in the name of some god or religion, odds are greatly in your favor that if you guessed 'Allah' or ' Muslim ', and you'd be right.

---

FBI Says Non-Muslims Carried Out More than 90% of All Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil

An FBI report shows that only a small percentage of terrorist attacks carried out on U.S. soil between 1980 and 2005 were perpetrated by Muslims.

Princeton University’s Loon Watch compiled the following chart from the FBI’s data (as explained below, this chart is over-simplified … and somewhat inaccurate):



Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database



According to this data, there were more Jewish acts of terrorism within the United States than Islamic (7% vs 6%). These radical Jews committed acts of terrorism in the name of their religion. These were not terrorists who happened to be Jews; rather, they were extremist Jews who committed acts of terrorism based on their religious passions, just like Al-Qaeda and company.

(The chart is misleading in several ways. For example, it labels “Extreme Left Wing Groups” and “Communists”, but not “Extreme Right Wing Groups” or “Fascists”. It should have either discarded all partisan labels, or included labels for both ends of the spectrum. In addition, “Latinos” is misleading, as Loonwatch is actually referring to Puerto Rican separatist groups, Cuban exile groups and the like. However, as shown below, many of the basic concepts are correct.)

U.S. News and World Report noted in February of this year:


Of the more than 300 American deaths from political violence and mass shootings since 9/11, only 33 have come at the hands of Muslim-Americans, according to the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security. The Muslim-American suspects or perpetrators in these or other attempted attacks fit no demographic profile—only 51 of more than 200 are of Arabic ethnicity. In 2012, all but one of the nine Muslim-American terrorism plots uncovered were halted in early stages. That one, an attempted bombing of a Social Security office in Arizona, caused no casualties.

Wired reported the same month:


Since 9/11, [Charles Kurzman, Professor of Sociology at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, writing for the Triangle Center on Terrorism and National Security] and his team tallies, 33 Americans have died as a result of terrorism launched by their Muslim neighbors. During that period, 180,000 Americans were murdered for reasons unrelated to terrorism. In just the past year, the mass shootings that have captivated America’s attention killed 66 Americans, “twice as many fatalities as from Muslim-American terrorism in all 11 years since 9/11,” notes Kurzman’s team.

Law enforcement, including “informants and undercover agents,” were involved in “almost all of the Muslim-American terrorism plots uncovered in 2012,” the Triangle team finds. That’s in keeping with the FBI’s recent practice of using undercover or double agents to encourage would-be terrorists to act on their violent desires and arresting them when they do — a practice critics say comes perilously close to entrapment. A difference in 2012 observed by Triangle: with the exception of the Arizona attack, all the alleged plots involving U.S. Muslims were “discovered and disrupted at an early stage,” while in the past three years, law enfor

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

My, what a fact-free brew we have here.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME