Banned books

[jon1jt]

communism - democracy
socialism - capitalism

Also, China : communism and capitalism.

They call that a mixed economy, but I never suggested that aspects of communism were dead. I said communisim is dead.

And communism is not dead, socialism maybe is.

I attended a communist meeting during grad school once and the seven people in attendance included two audience members sipping on a Starbucks latte while my friend and I went for a good laugh.

The Little Red Book's dialectic materialism brand is dead, trust me.

if someone is really smart and want to read it, he will find the way. So no problem for all!

Well sure, I acknowledge that. I also acknowledge that Cuban cigars are banned by US Customs and the number of aficionados who throw caution to the wind and light up their smuggled Cohiba in public is actually very small.

Because some hooligans will break the law is not a justification for not having the law.

[bazarov]

They call that a mixed economy, but I never suggested that aspects of communism were dead. I said communisim is dead.

Socialism is economic system, communism is political system - they are not directly connected.

I attended a communist meeting during grad school once and the seven people in attendance included two audience members sipping on a Starbucks latte while my friend and I went for a good laugh.

The Little Red Book's dialectic materialism brand is dead, trust me.

If it's dead in NY, that doesn't mean it's dead in the rest of the world.


P.S. This is OT, so if you want visit Orwell subforum.

[jon1jt]

Socialism is economic system, communism is political system - they are not directly connected.

Read The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital and then come back and tell me if those books only deal with the overthrow of a political system. Communism in its ideal form has no political system, my friend. Read.

Anyway, I'm not going to get into splitting hairs about this when you still have not addressed my book ban suggestion.

If it's dead in NY, that doesn't mean it's dead in the rest of the world.

Feel free to enlighten us about where the workers of the world are gathering for the big overthrow as the spirit of the age is pushing dialectical materialism into its final stage. (I bet there are secret meetings happening in Bosnia right now, just a hunch. )

P.S. This is OT, so if you want visit Orwell subforum.

Yes we are OT because you steered the discussion away from my book ban idea other than suggesting that some hooligans will carry on religion if their books are banned, and I responded to that and you failed here to follow up with anything significant. Therefore, you have received a Go To Jail card. Either pay $50, use a "Get out of jail free" card, or roll doubles. Sayonara

[Drkshadow03]

Look I know people are going to come down on me for what I'm about to say, but I think we should ban religious books, I'm sorry---they divide people and nations and inevitably cause wars and mass murder.

If we ban such texts they would move to an oral tradition that would evolve into obscurity.

The eradication of religious books would only be a first step toward peace. The butchering you speak of was justified by each sect and their interpretation of text. Religion has always prescribed to the mantra, the end justifies the means. Take away the collective vision of an end and you have no means.

You do realize your entire argument is based on "the ends justifies the means" as well. It is rather ironic.

The end: I want world peace, no wars, and little hippies singing Koombaya.

The means: Let's ban us some religious books.

Besides, it would never work anyway. People have tried to ban certain religions in the past, and it didn't work. The religious would either move to a different country that allowed them to practice openly., would read and practice in the privacy of their homes, and/or hold worship in secret in basements and such. There would be no practical way to enforce it. Not to mention to have the various countries of the world many of them dominated by religious culture agree to do it. So basically this is intellectual masterbation of the worst sort; pure wishful thinking without any practical application that it will ever come true in your lifetime.

Also where do you draw the line about what to ban? Since your main concern seems to be books that cause violence . . . do you ban any book that promotes violence and division? Do you ban Mein Kampf with the religious book? Do you ban the Communist Manifesto? Do you ban Che Guevara's various political writings? Who gets to define what books promote violence and may lead to war?

Your pragmatism is morally and ethically disgusting, spitting in the face of freedom; people should have the right to live the lives they wish as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others.

[jon1jt]

You do realize your entire argument is based on "the ends justifies the means" as well. It is rather ironic.

To my understanding this thread asks whether books should or should not be banned and that we should support our position. So then, the very nature of the question sets it up for an end justifies the means. I am throwing out an idea---not a starting point. You want grandiose and I can't give you that here. I can tell you that history has shown time and again that mass murder is motivated and justified in the name of God and driven by the moral fervor of opportunistic leaders both inside and outside organized religion-- converging around religous text, and that someday something will have to be done about it. You don't like to hear that, but democracy is not the making of a "social contract" that states that we all must tolerate those whose ways of life and actions go beyond the moral sphere.

The end: I want world peace, no wars, and little hippies singing Koombaya.

Ah so you've found us out! Yes, we are hippies and we want peace and we want it now, and we're not pacifists either. We believe in singing Koombaya while dressing guys like you up in Tye-Dye and piercing your ear, then send you home to mommy.

The means: Let's ban us some religious books.

Ahh, another one who likes to compare apples and oranges.
Let's see---you are comparing banning bibles to mass murder in the name of God. Okay.

Besides, it would never work anyway.

If there is objective truth and value---and I believe that there is---then through an intelligent, patient, disciplined search we have the capacity to derive absolute truths. The basic problem is that you're too busy objecting that there is no objective view, so it's hardly surprising that in your (postmodern) worldview nothing gets accomplished.

People have tried to ban certain religions in the past, and it didn't work.

You're wrong. Look at the damage inflicted by Third Reich Programmes. Another example is Saddam's treatment of the Kurds with the use of poisonous gas---and to think he had the means to do far more damage, refraining only after international pressure.

There would be no practical way to enforce it.

Well, there are practical and enforceable ways to erase religious books from the world. How does religious fanatacism flourish? Education. Islamic fanatics use Madrassas as incubators for the group's long term objectives. Another example is democratic state fanatacism in which elections and public education serve as mechanisms for inculcating virtues and moderating tensions. Education has always served to build or tare down.

Also where do you draw the line about what to ban? Since your main concern seems to be books that cause violence . . . do you ban any book that promotes violence and division? Do you ban Mein Kampf with the religious book? Do you ban the Communist Manifesto? Do you ban Che Guevara's various political writings? Who gets to define what books promote violence and may lead to war?

I draw the line at the moral sphere, which I mentioned earlier. The moral sphere holds that everyone's way of life matters and must be taken into account and respected to the degree possible. Once cruelty and the lack of respect for human life is inititiated against the innocent for any significant period of time---that corrodes and erodes the foundations of justice and civil society---then that privilege is given up, relinquished.

I reject your relativist claim that no person or group has the capacity to judge for the whole. There is a right way, there is a wrong way, and there are ways of life that can be tested through observation but more so by being lived. I respect every way of life and every point of view only to the extent that it doesn't impinge on the moral sphere. When it does, openness must be used like a hammer to smash moral dilemmas. Even democracy is not that stupid.

Your pragmatism is morally and ethically disgusting, spitting in the face of freedom; people should have the right to live the lives they wish as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others.

Let me get this straight: you reject my morals and ethics when you have no morals or ethics. I admit that banning a religious text is an abominable act and one that mustn't be taken likely, whereas relativists cut out the eyes of the world while at the same time asking us to see how sensible you all are.

[kiki1982]

Sorry, I'll have to do this outside the current discussion, but it's on topic...

I yesterday found out from my husband, who teaches English at Trier University in Germany, that he had to give a lesson on swear-words in English!

The teachers had even written a fact-sheet on it.
It included everything: c*t, f*ck, sh*t en even the really bad one with the mother...
Amazing.
It just puts the banning books for bad language in perspective.
Are those people not a little over-reacting when people are taught in other countries how to swear in a different language on a scale from 1 to 10?

I don't think the N-word was included, though.

[Drkshadow03]

I'm going to skip over your first two points because, well, they're rather pointless, and have little relevancy to my main point, which seemed to go over your head.

Ahh, another one who likes to compare apples and oranges.
Let's see---you are comparing banning bibles to mass murder in the name of God. Okay.

This is a fallacious argument known as false dilemma, false dichotomy or the either/or fallacy. The non-logic behind this statement goes something like this: Either you think mass murder is okay and therefore banning bibles is wrong or mass murder is wrong and therefore banning bibles are okay. But of course one can also think that mass murders and banning bibles are both morally wrong. Not to mention since I clearly divided one as the "means" and the other as your "ends" I am not actually comparing anything, and this reveals a poor lack of reading skills.

Even if I did make such a comparison, and agreed that one was MORE wrong than the other, it still would not have any bearing on the fact that the other one is still morally wrong as well. Two wrongs don't make a right last time I checked.

If there is objective truth and value---and I believe that there is---then through an intelligent, patient, disciplined search we have the capacity to derive absolute truths. The basic problem is that you're too busy objecting that there is no objective view, so it's hardly surprising that in your (postmodern) worldview nothing gets accomplished.

So when you start an intelligent, patient, disciplined search for truth instead of the nonsense you've been babbling so far let me know. The fact that you find my ideas "postmodern" rather than libertarian or Objectivist or Aristotelian or Kantian or Judaic shows you need to pay closer attention.

You're wrong. Look at the damage inflicted by Third Reich Programmes. Another example is Saddam's treatment of the Kurds with the use of poisonous gas---and to think he had the means to do far more damage, refraining only after international pressure.

You mean Judaism is gone from the face of the earth? ::Stares at Menorah on his shelf::

The Kurds have been wiped off the face of the planet? Not to mention the Kurds are an ethnic group, not a religion. So this is really confusing matters. No one is disagreeing that these are horribly immoral acts, but this completely ignores the original point.

In case, you've loss sight of the original point you were responding to, I wrote: "People have tried to ban religions, and it didn't work."

The Third Reich tried to destroy/ban/annihilate Judaism world-wide. It didn't work. I'm living testament to that fact. You haven't proved me wrong at all.

By the way, the fact that you're concrete examples of effective means of banning religion pretty much are limited thus far to Nazis and dictators doesn't bode well for the morality and ethics of the idea. Look at the sort of people who would want to accomplish that goal in the first place.

Well, there are practical and enforceable ways to erase religious books from the world. How does religious fanatacism flourish? Education. Islamic fanatics use Madrassas as incubators for the group's long term objectives. Another example is democratic state fanatacism in which elections and public education serve as mechanisms for inculcating virtues and moderating tensions. Education has always served to build or tare down.

It is not practical or enforceable as I hinted at above because such religious people are only going to go underground and practice their religions in the secrecy of their home as history can attest to with crackdowns on Catholicism in England, Judaism in Spain, etc.

The only real practical way I can think of to enforce the erasure of religious books would be to play Big Brother and bug homes of anyone you might suspect practicing religion; then you'd have to be willing to arrest religious folks and put them in jail for breaking the law for practicing their religion. Or worse. See the so-called examples you provided above.

So you would then be jailing people who have done nothing wrong other than wanting to read their book and practice their beliefs in peace, putting them in squalid conditions where one can die from disease and suffer from the inevitable violence always involved in captivity situations. So much for having the objective moral high-ground.

Now if you think I am offering a slippery slope argument, then by all means offer up a realistic method of banning religious books that could actually work. I am all ears. You mention Madrassas as a breeding ground for religious fanatacism. Fine you've isolated education as a source of reproducing religion, but that still doesn't address the practical question at all. How are you going to get sovereign Muslim nations to crack down on Madrassas? How are you going to take religious texts out of people's homes? What do you do if those people say, "No thanks. I think we'll be keeping our religious schools. Thank you very much."

If you can't answer that questionthan this has been nothing more than an intellectual masterbation exercise that relishes in simply stating imaginary ends, without having any real practical methods for accomplishing them.

I draw the line at the moral sphere, which I mentioned earlier. The moral sphere holds that everyone's way of life matters and must be taken into account and respected to the degree possible. Once cruelty and the lack of respect for human life is inititiated against the innocent for any significant period of time---that corrodes and erodes the foundations of justice and civil society---then that privilege is given up, relinquished.

You do realize you basically restated right here what I already said in my first post: "[P]eople should have the right to live the lives they wish as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others."

The problem, of course, is that as long as some or most believers in a religion can behave civilly than those who practice that religion have the right to exist and practice in peace. Since that in fact does seem to be the case, I find your idea about banning religious texts to be immoral and unethical. You're collectively punishing peaceful people for their way of life.

For me as a Jew, you would be erasing an important cultural artifact and a huge part of my life.

Let me get this straight: you reject my morals and ethics when you have no morals or ethics. I admit that banning a religious text is an abominable act and one that mustn't be taken likely, whereas relativists cut out the eyes of the world while at the same time asking us to see how sensible you all are.

Oh, I have a very strong sense of morality and ethics; I have no idea where you got this whacky idea that I'm a moral relativist, must be the figments of your overactive imagination.

If you're now admitting that banning a religious text is an abominable act because you would be collectively punishing those who are committing no harm by conflating them with those who do commit harm through the use of religion, then we have nothing to argue about anymore. You apparently saw the central mistake and intellectual flaw underlying your idea that we should ban religious texts, and you've come to realize why I called you immoral and unethical. There's nothing more to say, and you seemed to have have learn a valuable lesson today.

[jon1jt]

I'm going to skip over your first two points because, well, they're rather pointless, and have little relevancy to my main point, which seemed to go over your head.

The Third Reich tried to destroy/ban/annihilate Judaism world-wide. It didn't work. I'm living testament to that fact. You haven't proved me wrong at all. Try again, if you wish.

And your only point is that banning religious books is a bad idea---a very bad idea, in fact, because you're a practicing Jew who sits in the privacy of your home glancing wistfully over at the menorah that hangs as a beacon of religious hope. And maybe it is, but I don't think so. You say Hitler's Programmes" didn't work" and I agree they didn't work, but not likely for the same reasons.

The world did not unify for the express purpose of saving Judaism or the Jews from concentration camps. The resistance in the US under Roosevelt was to not involve itself with the "Jewish problem." Consider the case of those hundreds of German-Jews that Hitler expelled who set sail to a NY port only to be told by Roosevelt et al that they had to go back. Very tolerant of Americans at the time, eh?

YES, Judaism survived, but only as an unintended consequence of the outcome of the war as the allies had one objective: to crush the spead of fascism. I bring up this little piece of history to point out that even today religion is still vulnerable with the rise in global religious violence in tandem with a decreasing popular appreciation. I see your point---violence alone will not likely destroy religion let alone its bibles, but I strongly advise to never say never.

This is a fallacious argument known as false dilemma, false dichotomy or the either/or fallacy.

I'd much rather you make your point than showboat, especially that I took that class too. Anyway...

The non-logic behind this statement goes something like this: Either you think mass murder is okay and therefore banning bibles is wrong or mass murder is wrong and therefore banning bibles are okay.

How insidious to reduce what I said to one sentence and then use it as a starting point when you know it's more nuanced than this and I told you so in my first paragraph which you conveniently sidestepped. It would be as stupid for me to believe that such a ban would bring about the end of religion as it was that group of religious leaders who crucifed a bearded so-called Messiah in the name of ending his religion.

My larger point is that if toleration has no limits then there is no moral sphere---but I believe there must be one that takes into consideration action weighed against public harm. The one constant of religion in history is the violence perpetrated in the name of god, and society has failed to discuss this openly because of the social taboo, with placards of tolerance that dress the halls of public education buildings while private schools like Yeshiva have little interest in toleration as their secular studies program has to be required by law rather than voluntarily promoted.

Religion is a cult and religious books are the lifeblood of cults in so far as sustaining and extending cult ideology. You believe that religion is somehow above the law as well as their books that tell membership how to live and how to be obey god, even when that means people become inspired by a verse or passage and go out and kill and the murderous retaliations that it often triggers.

Two wrongs don't make a right last time I checked.

Profound. So basically what you're saying is that we ought to just leave things as they are and allow people to continue to die in the name of God with no end in sight. Got it.

So when you start an intelligent, patient, disciplined search for truth instead of the nonsense you've been babbling so far let me know.

History babbles the truth too, and so does the rise in religious violence around the world. Imagine if others voiced their "real" opinion about religion rather than in living rooms or in the attics of their minds, we'd be having a much different discussion here.

The fact that you find my ideas "postmodern" rather than libertarian or Objectivist or Aristotelian or Kantian or Judaic shows you need to pay closer attention.

An objectivism that promotes religion beyond the religions of the almighty dollar???? Aristotlean??? Kant...as you mean Kant's moral imperative? Kant acknowledges a moral threshold, you don't, which leaves me to think that you mentioned Kant either to sound bright or because you have no idea that the moral imperative is MORAL. Last point here. What the hell does Judaic have anything to do about the topic of banning bibles??

I mentioned postmodern in the sense that you see no such system as having a legitimate moral sphere, let alone a breaking of the moral sphere, which is the basis of American law. Unfortunately law and politics have sold out to the religious barons' doctrine of religious tolerance.

There are examples of some of the old pagan religions disappearing because of banning, but of course we still have some of their texts ironically enough.

Look, old pagan religions disappeared because the practice was a fad and people outgrew them because they were seen for what they were, stupid. So it doesn't surprise me that the books are still around.

Again I acknowledge that banning religious books is impossible to do overnight, which is why if it were to be done it would have to come with many many years of education to replace all the herd thinking it has acquired with one in which people can think for themselves.

It had nothing to do with banning texts. So we even have some evidence that banning texts might not be an effective method for banning religions and it might require something more. Not to mention many of these works were originally transfered through Oral traditions, so that blows that other theory of yours also out of the water that a viable Oral Tradition couldn't keep these religions alive anyway without texts.

In a previous post I acknowledged that banning the bible would result in its continuation in basements and backalley rooms. that's not a license, however, to stand idly by.

Because some hooligans are going to break the law is not a justification for not having the law.

I think banning bibles would result in a new oral tradition, and it would be my hope that religion would become what it truly is, a mythology.

Also relevant in this regard is that bibles would have to be phased out rather than banned. This said in previous post:

Kill the source of the infestation and you kill the pests as in a domino effect. Now don't think for a second that I'm suggesting that Homer or Bach will die suddenly because of society banning religious texts. The books and pieces of music you mention are forms of art in the highest sense, having evolved over the centuries and taking on new shape and meaning. Nor have I ever once heard of anyone committing a war or mass suicide other than in the name of one's interpretation of a religious text. References made to original text in stories or music will fall into obscurity the way the pre-Socratics have. I compare religious-inspired art to the pre-Socratics because the latter consist of fragments of what the Ancient Greek world may have had at their disposal of them. Today nobody gives a hoot about the pre-Socratics, yet they were once revered by important thinkers of their day, like Plato, Aristotle, and of course, Saint Socrates.

By the way, the fact that you're concrete examples of effective means of banning religion pretty much was limited to Nazis and dictators only demonstrates how bad an idea it would be to attempt to ban religious books and what would really need to be undertaken to accomplish these goals. Look at the sort of people you would have to align yourself with morally to accomplish your goal, look at the sort of people who have wanted to accomplish that goal in the first place.

There are countless examples of religious violence around the world, but religion has also killed in another far more subtle, yet equally violent way: through the inculcation of blind obedience. Religion is the blacking out of free thought. Objectivism denied.

The only real practical way I can think of to enforce the erasure of religious books would be to play Big Brother and bug homes of anyone you might suspect practicing religion; then you'd have to be willing to arrest religious folks and put them in jail for breaking the law for practicing their religion. Or worse. See the so-called examples you provided above.

You see, this is a scare tactic, a propaganda tool used by the collective to have us buy into how much worse life might be if we didn't tow the line. Silent coercion.

So you would then be jailing people who have done nothing wrong other than wanting to read their book and practice their beliefs in peace, putting them in squalid conditions where one can die from disease and suffer from the inevitable violence always involved in captivity situations. So much for having the objective moral high-ground.

Read my position again, junior.

Now if you think I am offering a slippery slope argument, then by all means offer up a realistic method of banning religious books that could actually work.

I already have---change the education system to one in which free thinking is promoted and not obstructed as it now is. Religion would die a fast and painless death and the world would be better for it, and I might even invite over friends and serve extra big jugs of wine and M&Ms to celebrate.

You do you realize you basically restated right here what I already said in my first post: "people should have the right to live the lives they wish as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others."

Yes, but with the provision that if their actions repeatedly violate the moral sphere then something would be done about it. Interesting how you left that part out.

For me as a Jew, you would be erasing an important cultural artifact and a huge part of my life.

No I wouldn't because with my proposal religion will survive for many years to come. I am talking about phasing it out, not brutally removing it in some Hitler-like fashion.

--
Last point, your point about the Kurds not being a religious group is absurd when the region is divided into three sects, each with their own understanding and workings of the Koran. Wake up.


I must leave you now my friend as I must go to church and then come home and pray all night and beg god's forgiveness. Yeah right.

[Drkshadow03]

My larger point is that if toleration has no limits then there is no moral sphere---but I believe there must be on that takes into consideration action weighed against public harm. The one constant of religion in history is the violence perpetrated in the name of god, and society has failed to discuss this openly because of the social taboo, with placards of tolerance that dress the halls of public education buildings while private schools like Yeshiva have little interest in toleration as their secular studies program has to be required by law rather than voluntarily promoted.

Religion is a cult and religious books are the lifeblood of cults in so far as sustaining and extending cult ideology. You believe that religion is somehow above the law as well as their books that tell membership how to live and how to be obey god, even when that means people become inspired by a verse or passage and go out and kill and the murderous retaliations that it often triggers.

If a person reads a religious passage and decides to go on a mass-shooting spree, they should be arrested. No one said toleration should be boundless. But for some strange reason you keep implying that I think the opposite. The toleration principle should apply to individual conduct and not groups. I think this is our biggest difference in thought on this subject.

So basically what you're saying is that we ought to just leave things as they are and allow people to continue to die in the name of God with no end in sight. Got it.

No! Go right ahead and criticize religious extremism. Fight the fanatics: Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindus, in whatever form or flavor they come in. I'd even help you with that fight. But the moment, you start trying to abolish religion altogether you're no longer my ally, and as far as I'm concerned you're not any different from those extremists, religious or otherwise, who violate people's rights and freedoms.

One last point, every time you say promoting so-called freethinking in education will be the panacea to religion, I can't help but think that you haven't met too many religious folks. I know plenty of religious people who have gotten secular educations and still practice religion.

[jon1jt]

And this is all you could come up with in light of what I just posted??...that if a religious fanatic goes on a mass shooting spree they should be punished accordingly? Wow.

Our biggest difference is that you think bible banning should not be permitted even though it inspires some to kill and I believe the bible is inextricably connected to the violence. You're a logical man, right, Mr darkshadow man? Well, if the bible has the capacity to inspire one follower to kill, then logically it follows it has the capacity to inspire all followers to kill. And what we know is that biblical interpretation has led to terror and violence against innocents by religious people, and yet you argue that we must provide some sort of full immunity to the text that inspires the violence because the follower and not The Book is murderous. You try to separate fanaticism from religion but religion cannot be without fanaticism.

Westers Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines "fanatic" as a person inspired by a deity, frenzied; marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion.

In light of this definition, it isn't surprising that in the Old Testament blasphemy is a crime punishable by death.

In America, no constitutional right is above government regulation---not free speech, not religion, not gun ownership. The reason for this is the 14th Amendment that permits the state to regulate certain constitutionally-protected behaviors that pose a public harm.

There are very strict standards American courts must follow to determine whether a law denying such freedom is justifiable. The US has outlawed many civil liberties, from yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater to the performing of certain...ahem...acts between consenting gay couples in the privacy of their own homes (did you know such laws are still on the books in many states?) And as you know there are rules for seditious libel and in America a journalist can sometimes be imprisoned for failing to disclose information of private conversations.

Public libraries actively keep books like the Satanic Verses off its shelves for the reason that they inspire violence and hate. This is a form of censorship. Yet bibles, which are written by people and not gods, which have caused hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of violent deaths against each other and innocents, is interpreted into every language and has religious leaders passing on the word on cable television.

I'm not surprised that you remained silent on the point that religion is a cult. Cults take on a life of their own and have the capacity to do horrible things. To separate individual behavior from cult life is like separating a fetus from its womb.

Religion, like a drug dealer, tells its followers to try some of this and some of that and they'll feel a whole lot better. Last I checked drugs were outlawed and the dealer goes to jail.

Posterity will one day look back on our civilization and wonder what was going on in our heads, how could we have been so ignorant. it was all so obvious. They'll also acknowledge that not everybody was so ignorant, at least I hope so.

I'm outta here.

[Drkshadow03]

And this is all you could come up with in light of what I just posted??...that if a religious fanatic goes on a mass shooting spree they should be punished accordingly? Wow.

Yes, if you were making better points I would respond to what you said. However, your throw-away Kurds comment is a great example of why I didn't bother. Yes, because the Kurds only have one religion among them . . .

They're an ethnic group by any definition of the term.

What I choose to do was instead identify what was worth responding to, the meat-and-potatoes of your post, so to speak. I have a life, you know.

Our biggest difference is that you think bible banning should not be permitted even though it inspires some to kill and I believe the bible is inextricably connected to the violence.

No, actually I don't think any book should be banned. That just happens to include the Bible.

You're a logical man, right, Mr darkshadow man? Well, if the bible has the capacity to inspire one follower to kill, then logically it follows it has the capacity to inspire all followers to kill. And what we know is that biblical interpretation has led to terror and violence against innocents by religious people, and yet you argue that we must provide some sort of full immunity to the text that inspires the violence because the follower and not The Book is murderous.

You're playing cheap rhetorical tricks here. If we are being historically accurate: "what we know is that biblical interpretation has led to terror and violence against innocent [religious people] by religious people" in most cases throughout history (insertion mine). I don't see that the primary victims should be further victimized by slow-witted atheists who want to take their religion away from them.

If you wish to criticize the text go right ahead, but don't be surprised when someone criticizes your criticisms and schools you intellectually because of the thousand and one fallacious arguments you'll undoubtably make.

You try to separate fanaticism from religion but religion cannot be without fanaticism.

Yes, yes. All ideas have their fanatics: Feminism, Platonism, Rationalism, Trekkies, you name it. It doesn't change the fact that most of these ideologies want to accomplish good things and the vast majority of those who espouse those ideas commit no harm any one.

In light of this definition, it isn't surprising that in the Old Testament blasphemy is a crime punishable by death.

In America, no constitutional right is above government regulation---not free speech, not religion, not gun ownership. The reason for this is the 14th Amendment that permits the state to regulate certain constitutionally-protected behaviors that pose a public harm.

There are very strict standards American courts must follow to determine whether a law denying such freedom is justifiable. The US has outlawed many civil liberties, from yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater to the performing of certain...ahem...acts between consenting gay couples in the privacy of their own homes (did you know such laws are still on the books in many states?) And as you know there are rules for seditious libel and in America a journalist can sometimes be imprisoned for failing to disclose information of private conversations.

You're again being intellectually disingenuous. When decisions have been made of this sort regarding religion, it has been to rule polygamy illegal or the right to smoke marijuana as part of a religious custom. There is a huge difference between modifying particular Civil Liberties covered under the Bill of Rights and the outright ignoring of the Bill of Rights altogether, which clearly protects freedom of religion. Regulation does not = complete restriction.

Public libraries actively keep books like the Satanic Verses off its shelves for the reason that they inspire violence and hate. This is a form of censorship. Yet bibles, which are written by people and not gods, which have caused hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of violent deaths against each other and innocents, is interpreted into every language and has religious leaders passing on the word on cable television.

Do you have any evidence of your claim?

I highly doubt most librarians keep the Satanic Verses off their shelves for the reasons you state; most of the librarians I know are too brain-washed by the ALA in their never-ending quest to allow censorship, real or fake, to dictate their library collections.

I just checked the Rhode Island Public libraries through CLAAN: at least 10 public libraries in Rhode Island own Satanic Verses. Burden of proof is on you.

I'm not surprised that you remained silent on the point that religion is a cult. Cults take on a life of their own and have the capacity to do horrible things. To separate individual behavior from cult life is like separating a fetus from its womb.

Because it was a complete non-point. Simply calling a religion a cult doesn't make it so. Likewise, it presumes that cults are automatically bad. What you're really doing is attempting to connect the emotional resonance of one word to the other. There is nothing really to respond to.

Even your loaded metaphor at the end here is rather silly. Fetuses eventually are separated from the womb; they become babies who eventually grow into adults. There are plenty of individuals to be found in religious groups; the fact that you seem to imply otherwise suggests to me that you haven't talked to too many religious folks, most of whom aren't very different from you, other than they believe in G-d, and if our conversation thus far is any indication, are probably a lot smarter as well.

Religion, like a drug dealer, tells its followers to try some of this and some of that and they'll feel a whole lot better. Last I checked drugs were outlawed and the dealer goes to jail.

This is yet another fallacious argument: Guilt by association.

You turned to irrelevant qualities that both things supposedly share, and hint that since drugs are outlawed, we should outlaw religion. Of course, my parents tell me I should try some of this and some of that and I'll feel a whole lot better; they're usually talking about broccolli when that happens. I don't see you demanding the outlaw of vegetables. These are basically superficial qualities that you're comparing to make a manipulative emotional point. I could use those irrelevant qualities for a thousand other things, which you'd never think to outlaw. This shows exactly why your argument is fallacious. Try again!

Posterity will one day look back on our civilization and wonder what was going on in our heads, how could we have been so ignorant. it was all so obvious. They'll also acknowledge that not everybody was so ignorant, at least I hope so.

Yes, but I doubt you'll be one of those they acknowledge as intelligent. Otherwise, the future is really screwed.

[jon1jt]

You remind me of one of those guys who carry around a pocket notebook that contains all the defective argument terms that you learned in Intro To Logic so that when somebody argues with you you can pull it out but offer little substance in return.

They're an ethnic group by any definition of the term.

I'll say it again, I don't care whether they're referred to as an ethnic group or religious group because my example was used to point out that the violent conflict between the Kurds and Shiites has a religious basis to support my larger point that religion causes terror and violence between many people.

No, actually I don't think any book should be banned. That just happens to include the Bible.

I meant to say The Turner Diaries has been banned from American public libraries. The Turner Diaries needs no introducion. The FBI called it "The bible of the racist right." The Satanic Verses has been banned in India and Bangledesh. And there are some other countries that banned it as well that I can't recall right now. Of course America would never ever ban The Satanic Verses, it was written by Salmon Rushdie AND it's anti-Islamic. Reminds me how our beloved George W. refused to speak with democratically elected Yasser Arafat. Anyway, as far as the Turner Diaries, it is widely referred to as "cult novel." Now if the Old or New Testament is called a cult book, followers are up in arms and immediately dissociate themselves from it, like you just did. Not so hard to see what's going on there, eh?


I'll play your little game for a moment only because you attended Yeshiva school and also you're winning the game called Boring Me.

My analogy between religion and drugs goes like this:

Religion gets followers high; drugs get addicts high.
Religion causes people to kill; drugs cause people to kill.

And just because you automatically believe drugs are bad doesn't mean everybody feels the way you do or else we'd be clones now wouldn't we.

So take your suggestion that I used it as an "emotional appeal" and stick it next to your menorah.

[Whifflingpin]

Since this thread has degenerated into mutual personal abuse, perhaps it should be closed

[jon1jt]

Since this thread has degenerated into mutual personal abuse, perhaps it should be closed

It's ironic that you're considering closing a thread having to do with censorship. Anyway, our discussion is carrying along fine, Whiff, there's a great deal more being said in this exchange if you pay attention, and I'm not bothered at all by any "personal abuse." And from what I gathered, DarkShadow03 is very much against censorship. So no need to pull the switch on our dialogue.

[Logos]

Let's please get back to the subject of this thread: banned books.

Do not discuss each other; any more posts containing off-topic and or negative personal remarks directed at another member will be removed in entirety.

--