Sunday, November 23, 2008

"Death Is Too Good For Them"

Moderator: Other than life imprisonment and the death sentence, what can be done?

Dr. Sa’d Al-’Inzi: According to Islamic law, a homosexual should be thrown from a tall building.

Moderator: What would you do with them?

Dr. Sa’d Al-’Inzi: To be honest, death is too good for them. They should be gathered in a public place, where they would be flogged and tortured, so the truth about these people is made clear and they serve as a lesson to others, because they are an epidemic plaguing society.


  1. I think you would be terrified to learn what America's finest "Christians" and "Jews" feel should be done to homosexuals or India's finest "Hindus" and "Sikhs." Religion is hateful and particularly loves directing that hatred toward the LGBT community. Changing the name their specific magic man in the sky does not differentiate their often disgusting and indefensible world-views.

    Ask Westboro Baptist Church at their next hateful protest of American soldiers' funerals what they believe should be done with a homosexual. Or, for that matter, if you could, ask Matthew Shepard.

    The point of this post is to steer you clear from the irrational and unfounded belief that Islam is somehow more hateful, more disgusting, or more debased than any other religious group.

  2. >>>The point of this post is to steer you clear from the irrational and unfounded belief that Islam is somehow more hateful, more disgusting, or more debased than any other religious group.<<<

    If you do not appreciate that radical "Islam is somehow more hateful, more disgusting, or more debased than any other religious group," then you are blind and naive, and have willfully ignored and/or distorted world events over the last 50 years to suit your relativistic fantasies.

  3. You may continue the ad hominem attacks upon me and my views, but you have failed to disprove them by simply calling me names.

  4. Sorry, about posting under sestabrooks name, I didn't realize she was logged in, but the former comment and this one belong to jumco.

  5. I can't believe you guys are actually arguing over which religion is worse. I'm not even going to try to make this elegant: This blog has truly deteriorated. I mean really, I get pissed off just reading this garbage. This is not intellectual discourse, it's intellectual masturbation. gag.

    p.s. To say that Islam is the "worst" religion is completely preposterous and close-minded. Forgive me for the hyperbole, but that's the most ignorant thing I've ever heard. I mean, who are you?

    I can't even read this stupid shit.

  6. I agree with E and add the question: Whose hate is worse, the Extremists hate for us or our hate for them? The one benefit of religion that Jumco or anyone opposed to organized religion cannot deny is the notion of transcendence above hate with compassion and not merely superstition.

  7. e, may I suggest that rather than complaining over the state of the blog that you contribute to it. Make it better. Where is the book review that you were so excited to post? Where is your insightful commentary into world affairs or your careful parsing of the day's most pressing issues? The point of this blog, as stated in its blurb, recognizes that it will fail, learn, and overcome. Let us overcome the dumbditude together.

  8. Maybe you've missed the "Greatest Photo of All Time" pieces or the "Sunday Roundup" or the musical contributions. Have you not seen some of the more interesting science posts or the comedic poster that ignited a discussion of philosophy, public discourse, and math? Were none of the economic posts during the darkest hours of the financial crisis of any use to you? Roga has been kind enough to post his personal artwork here. Did the engaging and spirited conversation over HRC as Sec. of State fail to meet your minimum threshold of interest or quality?

    I think you are being selective in your memory over this 'deteriorating' blog. There are exciting things happening here. Not every post will be able to strike a tone you feel appropriate, but take a look around, there are all types of posts, engaging so many aspects of the world today and keeping good friends close and engaged in spirited discussion and exchanging of ideas.

  9. dear jumco - sorry for dissing the blog. i read it everyday, and you're right, im being selective in my memory. i wish i could contribute more, but the hours that i've been working mean little time for me to contribute to anything at all. i suppose this was the topic that pissed me off enough to take the time to post.

    In all truth, and as an atheist, I find the over generalizations of religion incredibly shortsighted. I have hesitated to blog on this subject because I have not had the time to really put as much thought into it as I would like.

    So my promise is that I will. Before 2009.

  10. e, your objection to "overgeneralization" is exactly the point, I think. To compare, say, the ignorance of anti-stem cell research efforts with, say, beheading, paints with a brush too broad. To compare both with the teaching of humility, charity, and peace, is also too broad. None is defensible by scientific standards, but each produces wildly different effects for a regime.

  11. Pericles, see here. Unfortunately, contemporary religious fights are not limited to LGBT bigotry and anti-enlightenment efforts.

  12. Well, yes, and that's why you can't just waive your hand and say everything is the same and equally fucked up.

  13. Said fights are not limited to Islamic radicals either.

  14. Pericles, I think you've been reading too much Little Green Footballs for your own good. Unfortunately, decapitation is not limited to Muslim whackjobs. In fact, the practice was written as part of the law in the Talmud:

    Decapitation and the discourse of antisyncretism in the Babylonian Talmud;

    And the practice is littered throughout the King James Bible;

    And is still fantasized about and planned by these fine Christians: "Two white supremacists allegedly plotted to go on a national killing spree, shooting and decapitating black people and ultimately targeting Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, federal authorities said Monday;"

    Apparently going on a string of bombings across the southern United States and killing two people and wounding 150 others as 'Olympic Park Bobmer' Eric Rudolph did in the name of Jesus does not meet your gruesome threshold.

    Mind you, it was not enough for Catholicism to rape children for decades, cover it up all the way to the highest levels of the organization, be caught red handed obstructing justice in at least dozens of cases; no, we need decapitated people to classify a religion as morally bankrupt and uncivilized in Pericles's world. Good job Pericles, way to move that needle of human excellence forward while avoiding 'relativism.'

    I think the fact that we see fewer decapitations in the name of religion in the West is not because of lack of desire on religion's part. In the West, secular forces have prevented religion from becoming law. We called this process, the Enlightment. In the non-West (not necessarily East) religious forces are much more likely to control the law and its practice. Often, because the West has encouraged, or at the bare minimum enabled, religious extremists to take power (think Taliban, Khomeni, Sudan, Somalia).

    As such, we see more gruesome practices, not because the religion being practiced itself is more gruesome, but because the religion itself actually has the power of law. Here in the US and elsewhere, our fine secular law enforcement agencies STOP people who want to go and decapitate dozens of others. If they have managed to murder any, we send them through our legal system and kill them by other means.

    Thanking religion for this is like thanking religion for science. It's nonsense. We have to thank for fewer beheadings the secularism of governance via the Enlightenment, not any study in comparative religion.

  15. The lengths to which you go to maintain a contrived equality of evil between Islam and other contemporary religions is astonishing. Do you really, honestly believe that Islam is not provably more violent today than, say, the contemporary Catholic Church? Not only in fact, but doctrinally. If you do not see that, you are blind or willfully ignorant. Yes, it is true, that our separation of political power and religion dramatically minimizes the influence of the more radical fringes of all religions in America. But how can you be intellectually honest and say there is no difference today between these religions both doctrinally and in effect. Are you that obsessed with radical relativism that you will not allow yourself to concede differences when they exist. It is like saying the salmon and the shark are the same because they both have teeth. Well, sure, but often the best and most fruitful thinking is in examining the differences between things as opposed to their sameness. Surely, you miss a lot of what the West faces as a threat if you do not see any difference in the contemporary behavior of Islam versus the contemporary behavior of, say, the Krishnas.


Please post your comment(s) here. To reply to a specific comment, be sure to paste the appropriate @ displayed into the box below as the first line.