Yesterday he had on Bryan Fischer, a Christian theologian and Director of Issue Analysis for the American Family Association. Bryan believes that (A) Islam is a curse upon humanity, but doesn’t say that they must be wiped out (B). He merely intimates. Islam is, after all, a violent religion, while Christianity is a religion of peace.
Such lunacy is ripe ground for exposure of hypocrisy, and Hartmann was quick to remind him of Deuteronomy and Jeremiah. Fischer did duck and cover, an odd twist to religious fanaticism wherein the faithful abandon the Old Testament as necessary, and claim only ownership of the new. He dared Hartmann to come up with one passage in the New Testament that encouraged violence, and when he mentioned Jesus saying “I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword,” Fisher said that he was merely speaking in metaphor. Hartmann then asked him if possibly tracts of the Koran are metaphor too, but no, said Fischer, those passages are stone cold.
Fisher then went on to count 109 places in the Koran where violence is wished upon the infidels. Christianity is validated! (Like George Carlin, I wonder why this Christian God is always short of cash, but that’s another issue.)
And then I was done shaving, and off went the radio show. And this morning I remembered something else in the New Testament … Revelations. I don’t hear much about that book these days – that’s the one where 75% of the earth’s population are killed and a triumphant Christ returns on a white horse with a sword. All but 144,000 Jews are murdered. People either convert or suffer the consequences of this peaceful religion.
But so much for peaceful Christians and the dehumanizing rhetoric about Muslims. Deep inside each of these bible-validating cretins is a wish that 75% of us, and all but a bushel basket of Jews, die a horrible death.
Piece of Mindful 
Rule One:
Do not debate religion.
It is irrational, therefore, everything is provable.
LikeLike
Yeah, but can’t we say actions speak louder than words?
“It is a misfortune to human nature when religion is given by a conqueror. The Mahometan religion, which speaks only by the sword, acts still upon men with that destructive spirit with which it was founded.” — – Montesquieu
LikeLike
You can’t be serious.
LikeLike
Kinda like free markets.
LikeLike
Mark,
Kinda like government.
LikeLike
Finish the equation.
Govt. is irrational.
LikeLike
Government is [what we make it.] But government is. There is no debate here about the meaning of ‘is’.
LikeLike
Government is irrational.
It is not based on reason, it is based on violence.
“Might is Right” doctrine created it.
LikeLike
I guess I’ll have to do it.
Govt. = irrational
Religion = irrational
Therefore never discuss religion or politics.
LikeLike
Government is not irrational. That’s like saying families are irrational. It’s all in the makeup. IN places where power is well distributed among various sectors of society, government is the intersection and keeps things in balance.
If the society is, like ours, out of balance, then government misbehaves.
LikeLike
Mark,
Society operates best on voluntary exchange and voluntary association
It is “knocked off balance” by those that believe that violence is the best solution to problems of voluntary exchange and association.
LikeLike
The things you state as matters of fact are not. If it were so, it would be so somewhere. Even the tribes of Australia have codes of behavior enforced by the tribe – government.
LikeLike
Mark,
Certainly true – and the more barbaric, the more backward their society.
The more civilized (non-violent), the more advanced the society.
LikeLike
I agree, with Russell, if I may make a blatant appeal to a much smarter man than me, that government is necessary for civilized society.
You got a problem, take it up wid him.
LikeLike
Mark,
I would, but he is dead.
Thus, if you use his quote, it is up to you to defend it, not him.
LikeLike
I really don’t have to do anything. If you come here and state that men originated on Mars, repeatedly, it has no influence on me.
You repeatedly come here and tell me that the way the world works is wrong, and that government is some foreign body imposed from without, that people are islands and not interdependent … it is not true, and I carry no burden of proof. It is all around us.
Russell’s point was that government first comes about as a harsh force and is tamed by democracy, and as crude as democracy can be, it is the best possible form of government. History supports this, as the lessons learned on the continent were put into practice in this country.
That we have devolved, that we are no longer democratic, that we are not well-educated and deeply indoctrinated … look to the NAM first, government last.
LikeLike
BTW – I don’t think religion is necessarily “irrational”, although believing the mythology as factual is so. But the myths are a package in which are delivered very important truths. That’s why they have survived all the millenniums.
LikeLike
Mark,
Perhaps a definition would be in order.
“Religion” is an institution, and like all institution, places itself survival in front of the people who make up the institution.
“Spiritual” truths in teachings do often impart some understanding which aids in answering human problems. But these truths do not require an institution to enforce them.
LikeLike
Kinda like group-think. “Better than” people always demean others, self loathing justifies the kill — usually for status.
LikeLike
Something like one-third to one-half of the world’s population is useless. About 30 to 40 million Americans fall into the same category.
I really do not care what political, religious, or scientific rationale is used to get rid of those useless people, but they have to go.
LikeLike
I am shocked!
LikeLike
Mark,
*Wrong*? I don’t think so.
*Evil*? Yes, and I have defined it.
I have shown that you are *wrong* in your economic evaluations because your base premise is in error.
Wrong exists when you say “this is what you want” and act in a way the increases the distance away from what you want. In that frame, you are often wrong in your economic and political arguments.
Now you are just stating falsehoods. I have, repeatedly, presented the process and evolution of government and its forms with valid argument regarding profits from violence.
You are right, none of what you claim about me here is true.
I argue democracy is the worst possible form – for it establishes unlimited justifications for action (majority vote) with diffuse responsibility (*everyone* said it was ok).
Why do you claim it is the best?
Please offer at least a modicum of an argument.
History does NOT support this! The worst war in human history was between democracies! Hitler did not take power by a coup! He was elected in a democratic vote.
LikeLike
When I drive into town, I am forced to abide by traffic laws and yield to others who are also in a hurry.
If my neighbor wants to board dogs for income, she is prohibited because it would create noise and annoyance for her neighbors.
Each of those matters is an an abridgment of personal freedom brought about by the mere fact that we live in close quarters.
My advice to you is to go live in the woods. There you will find yourself free of “violence” of others. The rest of us understand that living in society creates need for attention to the needs of others.
Further, we realize that reasonable people would drive carefully and considerate people would not have dog pounds next to us, but there are assholes among us who ruin it for everyone. We use government to make and enforce laws and keep these violent assholes checked.
Quite simply, you want to be Thoreau. You can still do so, but telling us that the way we run an orderly society is violence is absurdity. You are an extreme outlier. You’re not always wrong, and the mainstream is not the place to go for reason, but in the matter of civil society, you’re completely out of it.
LikeLike
Mark,
It is not your road. You have to follow my rules on my road too, if you want to drive on them.
NASCAR has rules for their roads – which are different from the rules on my roads and different from the rules on other people’s roads. You don’t follow their rules, you can’t drive there either.
Rules about your property is not the question here.
It is attacking me on my road because you don’t like that I don’t want you to drive there – violence on non-violent people
You have a right to peace – and so does your neighbor. I bet you can’t go screaming in the night either.
Again, this has nothing to do with attacking you because she wants dogs.
No its not!
It is your confusion and misunderstanding of what is human freedom!
Human freedom is NOT the ability to do anything you want
The universe does not let you fly like a bird – thus defining freedom in the manner “to do anything” contradicts the reality of the universe
Human freedom is the lack of imposition from another man
You cannot impose on me to drive on my road if I do not want you to.
Your neighbor cannot impose upon your peace with loud dogs.
Why? As long as you behave yourself and act civilized – and keep your evil paws off of my person and property we can get along just fine.
Yes, I am sure you see it that way because you are a very needy guy who is limited in your ability to satisfy those needs by earning.
Thus, you need violence to steal it from those that can earn.
“Freedom for Mark, but not for anyone else”
Yeah, there is always a group who believes they can impose upon another person to get their way.
You are among that group – you just don’t like it when others do what you do to them!
No, he is dead too.
From a man called Mark who believes inflicting violence on non-violent people is an act of civility.
LikeLike
Your use of words is curious. Your names for things, like “violence” or “my” or “your” road (“our”?) do not describe underlying reality. There’s an odd disconnect there. Perhaps you are alienated. There is no feeling of community from you, and yet you come here to argue your case for existing as island. There is a need for human connections in you, as there is in all of us, and yet it is suppressed. .
Anyway, enough. We must make sacrifices to live with others, we naturally care for one another. I willingly follow traffic laws on our streets, pay taxes and make use of the commons. I am normal. You are different. Your ideas are interesting but poorly articulated, as you force concepts via words on reality that do not describe that reality. I suggest you work on vocabulary, or make that huge admission that all socialized adults do: We need others. If you do so, then words will flow freely and harmony between you and the world will settle in.
LikeLike
Mark,
It is examples to explain to you what you only know by rote.
Violence is clear and defined.
The disconnect only comes from you and the confusion that swirls around you. You live in a paradigm delivered to you by authorities and you have essentially refused to challenge them.
You confuse human connections with solving human problems by using violence. Bizarrely, you cannot do one without the other.
One may chose how, when and what sacrifice he wishes to make – but the moment YOU think you know better and force it upon him, you are the tyrant.
I do not follow “traffic” laws because they are laws. I go through red lights when it is safe to do so, because unlike you, I think for myself and believe I am smarter than a blinking light. You may not think you are that smart, but I don’t hold that against you.
I avoid taxes – they are theft.
What commons I use is caused by the lack of alternatives driven away by force.
I am not normal and I am different.
I think I am articulate and my ideas are not necessarily new. I think you do not like the implications of what you do and do not like that I expose them to you.
My vocabulary is just fine. Perhaps you do not comprehend or chose not to.
We may need others, but that does not give you the right to enslave them.
LikeLike