Philosophy Now Forum

.





....................................Men of Faith...







.

Spot on.

The media in the western world has invented this phrase, "sectarian violence".
But we are going to be brutally honest with each other. It is a cover-phrase for Religious Violence, that is to say, i.e. violence caused by religion.
The media, being primarily concerned with advertising dollars, seeks to neither upset nor offend their viewing audience.
Better they say "sectarian violence" rather than the controversial "religious violence".

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sectarian+bombing

Kuznetzova wrote:Spot on.

The media in the western world has invented this phrase, "sectarian violence". ...

Not really. The phrase implies religion, or any other exclusive belief system, as it applies to violence between the sects of a belief system.

"violence between the sects of a belief system."

Wow! You could write for modern media with your talents!

Maybe you could tell me a little more about "extraordinary rendition" (kidnapping), and "enhanced interrogation"? (torture) Ya know, it's not "guerrilla warfare", it's more like a small group loosely banded fighters embedded among the population. I wouldn't call that a "horse" -- it's more like a tall animal with four long legs, a long neck and a mane that runs fast. But "horse"? No, I'd never use that word.

.






.............................................AWESOME!








.

Kuznetzova wrote:Wow! You could write for modern media with your talents!

Thanks.

Maybe you could tell me a little more about "extraordinary rendition" (kidnapping), and "enhanced interrogation"? (torture) Ya know, it's not "guerrilla warfare", it's more like a small group loosely banded fighters embedded among the population. I wouldn't call that a "horse" -- it's more like a tall animal with four long legs, a long neck and a mane that runs fast. But "horse"? No, I'd never use that word.

Maybe you could tell me how all those terms are linked to "sectarianism" with its implication of religious conflict?

Kuznetzova wrote:Maybe you could tell me a little more about "extraordinary rendition" (kidnapping).

Extraordinary rendition is a disingenuous American term meaning taking a prisoner to another country for interrogation involving torture of such magnitude that it can't be legally accomplished in the United States.

Flat wooden piece of furniture with four long legs, used for placing things on its flat surface at the top.

"Table"? No. There are no "tables" here. We shouldn't call that a table , because someone may be offended!

That an answer?

What do you think "sectarianism" means then?

.













......................................................










.

Really?

Internet memes are a very poor substitute for thinking and reflection and discussion.

Anyway, this is a little concerning, it confirms what I find disturbing about atheism, it is truly, in the shape it takes today and in the shape it is in the OP that it is majoring in thought policing.

There are plenty of people of faith, of one sort or another who never commit atrocities, plenty of them are incredibly altruistic and aim to reach states of perfection in their own development and relationships with others which never register on the radar as priorities for atheists.

What matters is how people act, how they behave, not what they think and believe, but for atheists it matters if people are guided by faith, regardless of how they act and in fact they only want to talk about the atrocious behaviour and not the rest. Many of the beneficient legacies they owe a lot to and dont acknowledge at all.

Lark wrote:... for atheists it matters if people are guided by faith, regardless of how they act and in fact they only want to talk about the atrocious behaviour and not the rest. Many of the beneficient legacies they owe a lot to and dont acknowledge at all.

You appear to be doing what you decry, i.e. tarring all atheists. As an atheist I have no problem with people believing what they will and look forward to the day when many Christians actually act as such. Until then I will look askance at those who profess such a faith but act contrary to it.

Arising_uk wrote:

Lark wrote:... for atheists it matters if people are guided by faith, regardless of how they act and in fact they only want to talk about the atrocious behaviour and not the rest. Many of the beneficient legacies they owe a lot to and dont acknowledge at all.

You appear to be doing what you decry, i.e. tarring all atheists. As an atheist I have no problem with people believing what they will and look forward to the day when many Christians actually act as such. Until then I will look askance at those who profess such a faith but act contrary to it.

I dont believe I am doing what I decry because the behaviour I've described is not untypical of athiests, I've not encountered the tolerant, peaceable, accepting atheism you yourself describe as anything other than a rhetorical tool, usually deployed in a defensive way by athiests when the whole splinters and planks idea has been highlighted to them.

If atheists expect (as indeed they should) for us to distinguish them from other nominal atheists, like Stalin and Mao, then why is that they fail to show the same courtesy to "people of faith"? "People of faith" get blamed for everything anyone from any religious group ever does. Look above: "exclusive religions" are simply written off, without a moment's attention to what any of them actually believes or practices. Are atheists so silly that they don't know that there are differences? Or are they just so mean-spirited that they don't care whom they indict?

I've read atheists saying that the Crusades, the witch trials, the Inquisition or 9-11 are proof that religions are all evil. And so far I've never seen an atheist stand up to his/her peers and say, "That's not fair." So if atheists want to be treated fairly, they also ought to treat their interlocutors more fairly than they often do.