Islam

[canadianhorsefan]

Well, just want to see if anyone is interested why Islam is right.

canadianhorsefan

[MagusYanam]

http://www.asiasource.org/news/special_ ... /ebadi.cfm

Read the link. You keep wanting to paint all of Islam with the same wide brush, and it simply doesn't work. You claim to be an empiricist? An empiricist looks at all the evidence and tries not to make assumptions until they have, not just shoot off because of what they hear on the news at 10.

One thing I find about the Columbia Encyclopedia (and why I use Wikipedia instead) is that many of its articles are far too cursory to be accurate. This Janissary article is no exception. The Janissaries (at least during the time they were still recruiting Christian teenagers) were not forced to become Muslims, though their commanders did often try to proselytise them.

Even the Columbia Encyclopedia doesn't fail to mention that the Janissaries were not slaves. They were an elite corps, comparable with the Green Berets and the Special Forces nowadays. Only, their jobs as Janissaries were often more peaceful: when the Ottomans were not at war, the Janissaries were an order of scholars, administrators, police and tradesmen - hardly 'assassins', even in wartime. It's only after 1622 that the Janissaries began deposing Ottoman rulers (something they only did twice, in 1622 and in 1807). As for modern times, don't kid yourself - there are plenty of Christians in the U.S. Army and among the Special Forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissary

Also, Gould may be a Harvard professor, but he's not anti-Christian (unless you consider being Jewish anti-Christian). In fact, many Christians nowadays have no trouble with Non-Overlapping Magisteria (which is no more than saying that science and religion are two separate realms), because Gould didn't invent it in the first place. It was first advanced by the great (Christian) philosopher Immanuel Kant (who made a distinction between pure reason, the realm of science, and practical reason, the realm of religion and ethical philosophy). Since pure and practical reason are two different methods of understanding the world by two separate standards, it is inappropriate to use the one to try to understand the other.

[AlAyeti]

Me: "Please let us embrace intellectualism so that our society and every other society can rid itself of those that would murder people in the name of any God. And especially those people who kill in then name of progress, business, science and atheism. Their numbers of those killed stagger in comparison to people killed by religionists.


M-Y: Evidence! Forum Rule 5: back it up. I can well believe that people have killed in the name of 'progress' and 'business' (I'll take the liberty of providing the evidence here: World War I) - and if you were to qualify the 'atheism' bit with 'dialectical materialist' you'd have a halfway decent case (the Russian Revolution, which turned out to be quite bloody), but when have people killed in the name of 'science'? Name one war fought over science.

/ / /

Again, as is so typical in the secular-elitist position, "it" is the only one allowed a voice of "reason."

"Science" has created every single "Weapon of Mass Destruction." The very nature of a "better and better weapons" war since Nazi-Germany perfected it, is science-driven. Your egg-head versus my egghead is observable fact. War, now, is clearly scientist against scientist.

(And interesting to note, the Biblical view to the carnage of a future war comes into sharp relief.)

America even used Nazi-scientists to build "better and better weapons," to fight against the godless scientists building better and better weapons in the Soviet Union.

Really now, we can find debate on this where?

- -Experiment class: Deaths from the "Cold War" probably can find the source from stress related disease. How did anyone survive to adulthood worrying about an A-Bomb dropping on their home town. It's comical if you ponder it for a moment but the hypothesis may need to be focused into a theory. Though the smile would quickly fade, maybe a new definition of war veteran would find its place on a new wall somewhere. - -
Just a (non-sequitur) thought.


For one thing I make it clear (and have been highlighted for doinf so) that I accuse atheism of vastly more voluminous numbers of murder-victims from adherents of its dogma, than any other form of belief system ever invented. Even Islam.

Just for starters (y'all), Russia alone in all probability slaughtered more people in the causes of atheism than even battled each other in the Crusades.

But, you tack on Vietnam-era communist-atheist atrocities and religion looks like a goose down pillow on a pile of boulders, in comparison of bad versus bad, secular-atheism versus theocratic rule. Didn't your analogy of the good Muslim Janisary-owner point to the benevolence of religionists?

Oh, but in China . . ., there are thousands of millions of people (a billion-plus). The well-documented cases of the "anhilation" (a peculiarly accurate word in regards to 'god-less' atheism) of people in China that we know about!, is woefully and pitifully pointing to a more dastardly conclusion. Mainly, that there is mountains of victims making up mountains on the landscape of China.

Then there is abortion.

Completely sponsored by evolution-atheism.

200-million world-wide since Roe v. Wade?

Think that number is accurate? I don't its in "all probability" possibly much higher.

It's 40-million alone in just the good ol' U. S. of A.. It has to be comforting to think that Haeckles lie can bring easily sleep to adherents and proponents of such "human" carnage.

If the facts were embraced by those who can claim empiricism and yet ignore it, so to murder inconvenient children, then there would be even more atheists joining Nietzsche in the asylum.

Maybe totalitarian Muslim rule isn't all that bad after all. If they would just do away with all of the beheading and execution of non-Muslim thing that is. But a leopard cannot change its spots is also empirical truth.


But in all seriousness, something also very frightening is on the horizon!

- - Islamic Creation Science - -


Though a Muslim position vastly plagarized (as usual) from our American Christian experts, the fear of what will happen when really violent extremists get a hold of some "facts" for their god. . . and we infidels have all had it!

Enter "Harun Yahya" in a search engine (or, www.harunyahya.com) and use your intellectual powers to see where that will lead us all.

Can you smell the lit fuse?



(Shivers)

[MagusYanam]

Again, as is so typical in the secular-elitist position, "it" is the only one allowed a voice of "reason."

"Science" has created every single "Weapon of Mass Destruction." The very nature of a "better and better weapons" war since Nazi-Germany perfected it, is science-driven. Your egg-head versus my egghead is observable fact. War, now, is clearly scientist against scientist.

(And interesting to note, the Biblical view to the carnage of a future war comes into sharp relief.)

America even used Nazi-scientists to build "better and better weapons," to fight against the godless scientists building better and better weapons in the Soviet Union.

Stop equivocating, right there. Wars fought by scientists are things completely different than wars fought in the name of science - the assertion in your previous post. I have yet to see one of those. World War II and the Cold War were not fought over science, they were fought to stop the spread of totalitarian (fascist / communist) expansionist regimes. If you're going to try and make an argument about this, make sure you're making your argument consistent and not making logical fallacies left, right and centre.

Just for starters (y'all), Russia alone in all probability slaughtered more people in the causes of atheism than even battled each other in the Crusades.

But, you tack on Vietnam-era communist-atheist atrocities and religion looks like a goose down pillow on a pile of boulders, in comparison of bad versus bad, secular-atheism versus theocratic rule. Didn't your analogy of the good Muslim Janisary-owner point to the benevolence of religionists?

You haven't been reading a word of my posts, have you? I explicitly said the Janissaries were not owned, they were free men: scholars, bureaucrats, police and tradesmen - not slaves. They were beholden to the Ottoman Empire. But the entire Janissary issue was a bit of a tangent to begin with - my point was that Muslim nations in the past (whether Ottoman, Persian or Mughal) have, with few exceptions (Aurangzeb being the notable one), been very tolerant of other religions' adherents under their rule.

I agree that the actions of atheists can be very destructive. But you can't judge the adherent by the religion (or lack thereof). In the Crusades, the religious leaders and commanders were most to blame, not the Christians still back in Europe or Christianity as a whole. Likewise, abuses of atheism in communist regimes are best laid at the feet of their perpetrators and not atheism itself.

I am beholden to my Church and to my greater community. Likewise is an atheist beholden to his fellow-men (at least, ideally). But, as we see, at times the atheist and the Christian can do a great deal of damage in their disregard for their community.

[AlAyeti]

You need to stop trying to defend your position on Islamic altruism. It does not exist outside of Islamic totalitarianism. Of course there is "peace" if any opposition is obliterated. Empirical. Isn't that the exact argument of the Christian-basher towards American Evangelical's? That they want to silence differing views? But certainly by far less violent means than Islam for sure.

Now on to violent science! Which of course may be very redundant.

Why would an individual man labor all day and all night to be able to develope a thing that can kill millions of people in the blink of an eye?

Egotist or egalitarian?

That is the point I assert drives one "military" scientist against another. Whether atheist or a belief in eternity, why would a man build a weapon of mass destruction? Anybody testing the garden-variety scientist for sociopathy? Or narcissism? Sure could have stopped the Nazi's and the holocaust before it started.

Do we not hold the owner of a gun responsible for what happens with their gun? Even if is stolen? Now, by law? I am using the same logic to accuse science and scientists as being warmongers and a warmongering profession. The world accuses the United States exactly the same way. Business and economics is championed by scientists.

Are they not supposedly highly educated and enlightened individuals? Why do we even assume that an education is going to be used for anything but selfishness? Empiricism proves the exact opposite so many times in a scientist that we should outlaw or at least highly regulate the profession. Gun Control Scientist-Control. No difference in lethality as the cause of concern.

From scientist we get er, well, evil scientists? The island of Doctor Moreau is an absolute fact funded now by congress!!!!!

I equivocated because I have the right to judge a violent man and his reasons for being violent.

Like Islam, Scientists gain a lot of money, power and influence from wars. They are smart enough to steer the debate from the real issue.

I will concede that "a declaration of war of science" has not occurred between countries but only by semantics! But also, I absolutely stand on the murders committed in the name of science on the unborn children murdered by abortion that number in the hundreds of millions. How many do you suppose were from incest or rape or problem pregnancies? Fifty?

Ever heard of Samuel Colt? He labored hard and long in the laboratory to come up with a more effective killing pistol.

He gave arms to both the Confederates and the Union in a very cleverly devised manner.

Hell or heaven for that scientist?

And how many worked on the Nuclear Bomb? If we could go back in time and imprison these men while they were in graduate school, the world be a safer place. I mean from utter destruction, not just wars and rumors of wars.

(I know where unrepentant abortionists go after death so don't bother trying to change my completely decided intellect on that.)

Think about Saudi Arabians like Sam Colt.

Islam?

Science?

Same outcome for the innocent.

I think a good comparison.

[MagusYanam]

Still no empirical evidence I see. Just preconceptions and generalisations. In any history class in any high school this would be 'F' material, especially considering that you have yet to explain the views of Shirin Ebadi with your vaunted 'empiricism'. Anything against your preconceived notions about what Islam is supposed to be just gets thrown out the window, doesn't it?

That aside, Christian fundamentalists already have enough leeway in this country. They get to run many school boards by their whims and they have the Republican Party firmly under their collective thumbs (as is evidenced almost daily by Dubya). The 'opposition' is coming from us - the Christian mainliners who find ourselves increasingly edged out on both sides (atheists and fundamentalists). If anything, we're the ones being silenced, at least in this country.

Also, I do not deny that there are scientists like Oppenheimer who drift somewhere between paranoia and egotism. However, there are plenty of other scientists, like Leo Szilard - one of the most prominent Manhattan Project physicists who cautioned against nuclear technologies being used against people in war on a moral basis - who stick with their consciences. 'Science', like 'Islam', 'atheism' and 'Christianity', can't all be painted with the same broad brushed and characterised in such general terms.

Do we not hold the owner of a gun responsible for what happens with their gun? Even if is stolen? Now, by law? I am using the same logic to accuse science and scientists as being warmongers and a warmongering profession. The world accuses the United States exactly the same way. Business and economics is championed by scientists.

Are they not supposedly highly educated and enlightened individuals? Why do we even assume that an education is going to be used for anything but selfishness? Empiricism proves the exact opposite so many times in a scientist that we should outlaw or at least highly regulate the profession. Gun Control Scientist-Control. No difference in lethality as the cause of concern.

Try applying that to my father, who is a scientist, a pacifist and not the best of friends to big business (if I may understate my case). He teaches and experiments in geophysics at Brown University, something which has nothing to do with the mechanics of war. He has never killed, nor have any of his patents (unless someone gets murdered with an art-glass vase which was meant for other purposes). Again, I see no evidence in your argumentation, just poorly-founded preconceptions and conspiracy theories.

I equivocated because I have the right to judge a violent man and his reasons for being violent.

On this forum, you are obligated to provide logical argumentation (i.e. no equivocating) and civil discourse.

Like Islam, Scientists gain a lot of money, power and influence from wars.

Says who? The Middle East is among the most impoverished and desperate of regions today, and it's not from lack of violence, war and turmoil. The few rich people there are get their money, power and influence from the oil industry.

But also, I absolutely stand on the murders committed in the name of science on the unborn children murdered by abortion that number in the hundreds of millions. How many do you suppose were from incest or rape or problem pregnancies? Fifty?

Abortions are not done in the name of science. They are acts of either desperation or convenience - very little by way of scientific rationale. I think abortion is wrong, but you can't get rid of it overnight and you certainly can't blame it on the scientists or the medical profession as a whole.

Ever heard of Samuel Colt? He labored hard and long in the laboratory to come up with a more effective killing pistol.

As a matter of fact, I have heard of Samuel Colt. Unfortunately for your argument, I never heard that he was a scientist. At first he was a smith, a machinist in a textile mill owned by his father. After that he came up with the idea for a revolving pistol from observing the action of a nautical capstan. After he got the patent, he became a businessman involved in selling revolvers. Little actual science involved in that patent, just the adaptation of a piece of extant ship equipment into a gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Colt

And how many worked on the Nuclear Bomb? If we could go back in time and imprison these men while they were in graduate school, the world be a safer place. I mean from utter destruction, not just wars and rumors of wars.

For someone who doesn't like Nazis, you sure use a lot of their rhetoric. You would imprison Albert Einstein under Nazi rule in Germany? Or send Leo Szilard to a concentration camp in Hungary? Yeah, sounds like something they'd do to 'make the world a safer place'. Neither of these men knew just how their work would be corrupted into a WMD; they had very little knowledge of what political manoeuvring went on outside their laboratories. In fact, once they knew what it was for, they protested its use to Truman. My uncle knew some people on the Manhattan Project, and what they could tell him about it at the time was very limited both by the need for secrecy and by the lack of information they were given on what the heck it was for. This is an excerpt from Major Lee Wyatt's paper 'Tainted Decision: The Atom Bomb And America's Rush To End World War II':

In a separate action, Dr. Leo Szilard, the scientist
who originally approached President Roosevelt about atomic
research, forwarded two petitions with over 60 signatures
to Truman urging non-military use of the bomb. Szilard
worried that there was not enough contact between
scientists and Congress. Many of the young scientists
felt they were working in a vacuum, far removed from the
decision process, with little or no knowledge about
government policy or the military situation. Neither
Szilard petition reached the President. General Groves
intercepted the second document and passed it to George
Harrison for safekeeping. Groves justified his actions on
the grounds that the Interim Committee's recommendations
had already been forwarded to President Truman. If one
peers closer, an additional factor existed. The petition
simply arrived too late to make a difference. The atomic
bomb test had proven successful the previous day.
President Truman received the positive news at Potsdam and
began formulating the decision to use the bomb against
Japan. There is little reason to believe that the Szilard
petition stood any chance of changing Truman's mind.

Think about Saudi Arabians like Sam Colt.
Islam?
Science?
Same outcome for the innocent.
I think a good comparison.

Can you name any Saudis like Samuel Colt? Do you have any evidence for comparison? What makes you think that 'Islam' and 'science' in such general terms are in any way comparable in this field of discussion?

[AlAyeti]

Your emotionalism doesn't bode well for a good grade either.

I have no pre-conceived notions about Islam. Only cold hard facts. Cold, like the floor the heads of their victims in Iraq hit after they are beheaded in the name of the religion of peace.

My empirical evidence is actual observable history. Islam is not peaceful outside of its own dominance. That is a fact. It wipes out opposition, then "peace."

If you do not want to read the words in a history book without your inappropriate Muslim-defending glasses on, I can't get through to you on a message board. See how long your western behind would last in Kabul or Mecca.

You protected your "good" parent from the the evil I said was prevalent in scientists.

A minority. But then again, a pacifist can be very unhealthy for the victims of violence. How many Vietnamese and Cambodians owe their murders to the anti-war pacifist's that let them die by atheist communists in the killing fields?

The scientists of the manhattan project? You just proved my point at how stupid they actually were. Please spare me the Nazi comparison. I'm a Christian that would have died in a concentration camp had I lived in WWII Germany. You knew what I meant about saving the world from Oppenheimer's little lab work.

Scientists convince women that the humans inside of them are just "tissue." Only God can forgive them. If they were to show empirical fact to the women in question, then the horro would end over night. We both know that when a woman realizes what she did, her life is forever altered. By fact.

Colt was every bit a scientist discovering principles as a worker uncovering the cure for cancer. Let's not get off the truth of my point with semantics.

Same with Islam. Until people are free to spread their ideas "freely" in Islamic countries, your defense of Islam is bizaare. Ten seconds ago a person who was not willing to follow Islam was tortured, imprisoned or murdered in the name of allah.

Any Presbyterians beheading infidels lately?

Spare me the conspiracies theory ad hom attack as well. It is used as a last ditch effort when guilt is to be shed from a guilty point of view.

Saudi's like Sam Colt? That is easy. Jihad! It is a business practice in Saudi Arabia. A deadly business practice and just like scientists who live miles away from their products ultimate death and destruction the Saudi's deny they ever knew what it was all about, or how some "else" would use their knowledge.

[MagusYanam]

I have no pre-conceived notions about Islam. Only cold hard facts. Cold, like the floor the heads of their victims in Iraq hit after they are beheaded in the name of the religion of peace.

My empirical evidence is actual observable history. Islam is not peaceful outside of its own dominance. That is a fact. It wipes out opposition, then "peace."

If you do not want to read the words in a history book without your inappropriate Muslim-defending glasses on, I can't get through to you on a message board. See how long your western behind would last in Kabul or Mecca.

Have you met any Muslims personally? Talked with them about these kinds of issues? Until you have, everything you think you know about Islam is preconceived. Everything you see on the ten-o'clock news or in a history book comes second-hand, removed from the original source, and with commentary. You're obviously not an historian, because historians emphatically (almost pathologically) assert that history is far from straight-forward, cut-and-dried fact. There are endless controversies over ways to interpret historical evidence, and often the evidence can point more than one way. Islam is no exception:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lewis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Said

I won't deny that there are some Muslims out there who have some extremely wacky ideas about things like jihad and killing infidels, et cetera, but it's not their actions I'm defending. On the other hand, you have obviously never been in a classroom where Muslims, conservative Jews and Christians have discussed civilly and peacefully these same issues we're debating here. You've obviously not listened to Shirin Ebadi speak publicly at Brown University last year. I was in that classroom and at that speech. That's about as empirical and first-hand as these things get.

You're judging an entire religious tradition on the actions of a few extremist loonies the equivalent of Fred Phelps or Jim Jones in Christianity - not a sound judgment at all. There is a silent majority in Iraq, in Jordan, in Egypt, in Turkey which denounces these people who shame their religion in the eyes of the world. We heard them after they spoke out against the 9/11 attacks, from the Maghreb to New Guinea.

Colt was every bit a scientist discovering principles as a worker uncovering the cure for cancer. Let's not get off the truth of my point with semantics.

If you want to classify machinists as scientists, go right ahead. All the worse for your argument, because then you'd lump tech support people, plumbers, janitors et cetera into that category (people who obviously have nothing to do with methods of mass killing).

You protected your "good" parent from the the evil I said was prevalent in scientists.

A minority. But then again, a pacifist can be very unhealthy for the victims of violence. How many Vietnamese and Cambodians owe their murders to the anti-war pacifist's that let them die by atheist communists in the killing fields?

Not as many as were surely killed (and still being killed) by Nixon's ordnance. Unfortunately, we pacifists failed to stop the Vietnam war - the media did that (for which I'm sure we should be grateful). On the other hand, pacifism is about more than just avoiding war, it's about trying to build a structure of social justice to ensure that war needn't happen again.

And, just so you know, my father was a scientist (and a Christian) long before I was born. His colleagues I can hardly describe as 'evil' in any capacity, any more so than the non-scientists I've met. Your assertion doesn't tally with personal experience and doesn't appear to be grounded in any evidence whatsoever.

The scientists of the manhattan project? You just proved my point at how stupid they actually were. Please spare me the Nazi comparison. I'm a Christian that would have died in a concentration camp had I lived in WWII Germany. You knew what I meant about saving the world from Oppenheimer's little lab work.

You didn't argue that they were stupid, you argued that they were evil, which I proved that they were not. I agree that many of them were incredibly short-sighted. As it is, equivocation does not become your argument.

You should also review your history. The people least persecuted by the Nazis were, in fact, 'Aryan' Catholics and members of the EKD (Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland, or Evangelical Church in Germany) - both of which officially supported Hitler throughout his dictatorship. Jews, Orthodox Christians and Social Democrats were the ones most heavily persecuted.

Scientists convince women that the humans inside of them are just "tissue." Only God can forgive them. If they were to show empirical fact to the women in question, then the horro would end over night. We both know that when a woman realizes what she did, her life is forever altered. By fact.

Scientists don't - that's still a scientific and ethical controversy (do the research). Convincing women that foeti are 'tissue' is done by Planned Parenthood, which is not a scientific organisation but a political lobby, as well you know.

Same with Islam. Until people are free to spread their ideas "freely" in Islamic countries, your defense of Islam is bizaare. Ten seconds ago a person who was not willing to follow Islam was tortured, imprisoned or murdered in the name of allah.

Oh, you mean like in Turkey, which has a strong history of religious tolerance, allowed Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians to run their own schools and exempted them (with some exceptions already discussed) from military service? Europe wasn't doing that five hundred years ago by any stretch of the imagination.

http://www.globaled.org/nyworld/materia ... rkish.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/tnews_00jan.htm

Recently, Turkey has been celebrating Christmas in honour of its Orthodox minority. Christians are allowed to worship freely in Turkey (except when they violate zoning restrictions, as in this country), as are Jews.

Spare me the conspiracies theory ad hom attack as well. It is used as a last ditch effort when guilt is to be shed from a guilty point of view.

So what would you call a blanket indictment of all scientists based on flimsy evidence and even flimsier reasoning, may I ask?

Saudi's like Sam Colt? That is easy. Jihad! It is a business practice in Saudi Arabia. A deadly business practice and just like scientists who live miles away from their products ultimate death and destruction the Saudi's deny they ever knew what it was all about, or how some "else" would use their knowledge.

You won't find me defending the Saudi regime, but that's beside the point. Scientists actively tried to stop the bomb from being used against people after they knew what it was about (not a business practise, but you seem to be confusing the two), whereas the Saudis have a dual policy of encouragement and laissez-faire with regard to jihad which bloodies their hands. The comparison seems somewhat thin to me.

[AlAyeti]

Just weeks after the 9-11 attack on New York's Trade Towers, I went to a Mosque and brought my two children 1, and 4, years of age and had a two and a half hour talk with Muslim's there. After giving them a Bible and accepting their gift of the Qur'an, I was honest and made it clear that I would never become a Muslim for any reason.

They said the same of their free choice of religion.

I wanted to know where do we go from here?

Some got a little perturbed and most understood my concern for members of the religion that have not stopped killing people in the name of that religion since its inception or, yesterdays newspaper.

(I would be more than willing to have my children educated in an American Muslim school. As long as they are allowed to read other religious points of view. The obvious mistakes about the Biblical God are glaring. If my children want to entertain any other non-Biblical belief system I am more than willing to let them, knowing that the truth shines brighter than mistakes.)

They assured me that Muslim's only attack people who attack them. I mentioned terrorism. They denounced terrorism. Muslim's are still killing people in the name of Islam. Today.

Yes, I am judging the entire religious tradition. That would be an accurate view. Individual people?, I have faith that if they will test things they will be alright and so will I.

Now Mr. Colt. Just because Sam Colt did not graduate from MIT does not mean he did in fact pursue his invention every single bit as much as a scientist. He discovered a process. He marketed a product. It killed many, many people. He pretended it was for good. He knew better.

Oppenheimer's bomb. Automobiles. Plastic. Airplanes. Every military thing. Science. Death.

What's the difference in what a mechanic does and what the A-Bomb makers did? Zip. Just semantics and class labeling. My point about stupidity? Scientists just get to write another treatise to wash that away and get to keep their university seat. Mechanics get fired. But they do the same things.

Now on to war fighters!

When I see pacifist organizations SEND adherents of that religion somewhere other than comfortable little American streets and the cozy little college campus, than I will think it is something other than an organization of lascivious licentious dopers not willing to die for anything other than from an accidental dose of VD or heroin. Empiricism is my guide here as well. I live in California.

The US Military saves lives. For real.

[MagusYanam]

Now Mr. Colt. Just because Sam Colt did not graduate from MIT does not mean he did in fact pursue his invention every single bit as much as a scientist. He discovered a process. He marketed a product. It killed many, many people. He pretended it was for good. He knew better.

Oppenheimer's bomb. Automobiles. Plastic. Airplanes. Every military thing. Science. Death.

What's the difference in what a mechanic does and what the A-Bomb makers did? Zip. Just semantics and class labeling. My point about stupidity? Scientists just get to write another treatise to wash that away and get to keep their university seat. Mechanics get fired. But they do the same things.

The US Military saves lives. For real.

Is it just me, or is there a major argumentative logical disconnect here? You say that every invention created primarily for use by the military destroys lives, then go on to say that the military which uses them saves lives 'for real'. So which is it, saving life or ending it?

Also, there is a great deal of difference between what scientists do and what mechanics do. Scientists study nature, whether it be ecology, the nature of rocks and ceramics or the nature of the atom. The scientists working on the Manhattan Project were mostly concerned with how the atom worked and how the energy it made when broken could be harnessed. The actual machinery and delivery systems used to create a nuclear fission explosion above a city were built by military contractors - businessmen, assisted by mechanics. These people didn't have to know the theory behind fission to actually make it work, just like assembly-line workers building a car or motor-company executives selling them don't need to know how a carburetor actually works in order to make a car run.

Also, I'm fairly sure the Wright Brothers didn't have stealth bombers in mind when they constructed the first aeroplane, nor did Carl and Bertha Benz have tanks and humvees in mind when they constructed and drove the first automobile, nor did Leo Baekeland have military applications in mind when he sold his carbolic-acid based plastic to Kodak for use in photography.

When I see pacifist organizations SEND adherents of that religion somewhere other than comfortable little American streets and the cozy little college campus, than I will think it is something other than an organization of lascivious licentious dopers not willing to die for anything other than from an accidental dose of VD or heroin. Empiricism is my guide here as well. I live in California.

Ever heard of the AFSC / BFSC (American / British Friends Service Committee)? What about the MCC (Mennonite Central Committee)? Both were founded in the aftermath of World War I to provide aid to people living in bombed-out places in France, Germany, Austria and Soviet Russia at great risk. They still send people to troubled parts of the world to provide their services. What about the CPS (Civilian Public Service) camps during World War II and Vietnam in which Quakers and Anabaptists played particularly prominent roles?

These are the real pacifist organisations, mainly concentrated in the Midwest and on the East Coast. During the '60's, some Quaker communities started to get a little more New-Agey, but the Mennonites have always kept a rather pietist streak, insisting on proper marital conduct (especially after it became a controversy in the 1500's). The only drugs they do are coffee and beer (being German, of course). I'm not sure, but I haven't ever heard of drugs being a major problem among the Quakers either, or licentiousness, any more than other Christian denominations.

[MagusYanam]

They assured me that Muslim's only attack people who attack them. I mentioned terrorism. They denounced terrorism. Muslim's are still killing people in the name of Islam. Today.

I might note that the only perceivable reason Christians aren't killing people in the name of Christianity today is because of the direction Europe took after the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648). That was the last war in which European Christians fought each other (or anyone else) in the name of God and religion (at least, on a formal level). The Treaty of Westphalia emphasised the sovereignty of the individual nation-state which took precedence over the sovereignty of the Church, whichever Church it happened to be (Lutheran, Reformed or Catholic).

Nowadays, we seem to be rescinding the Westphalian model, since Bush, like Reagan before him, shows a complete lack of regard for other nations' sovereignty (yet another reason I voted for Kerry). Since we seem to be regressing to a pre-Westphalian standard for nationhood and warfare, we may yet see (God forbid) Christians killing in the name of their religion again.