Did anybody see the picture of a monk in a sidecar? Pretty cool, huh.

I like the color coordination between the sidecar and the monk's robe.

This from somebody whose username is tang. What do you expect?

Just kidding. Welcome to the cellar, tang. Uh, what monk are you talking about?

The only problem is that I don't belive it to be true.

The people that blow themselves up do it because their religion says it's the thing to do, not because it makes any form of sense outside of that framework.

Without the fervent belief that their ephemeral little soul was in jeopardy or that they get the virgins and the grapes and no women when they go to heaven they would have a much more shallow pool of motivation to draw from.

I lump athiests in the same boat as religionists, one asserts an absolute positive in many, many forms, and the other asserts an absolute negative.

Neither (any) of which is provable.

Thanks!
Uh, you know....the monk....in the sidecar. :worried:

Do you have a link to this fine picture?

Sure. Right, tang? Trying to get the thread back on track?:D

Which of these statements do disbelieve?
I think that many terrorists have mixed motivations, including a portion of political, religious, and psycho. I think they're trying to get something done here on earth, and at best, secondarily motivated to achieve some reward in the hereafter.

I think the "religious" motivations are as much for those who stay behind as it is for those who die. They, and we must include more than just those who actually explode on impact in that "they", use the colors of religion for the recruiting value, for the prestige value, for the abililty to leverage such forces as shame and xenophobia as motivational tools. This is how propoganda works. Terrorism in the name of religion is terrorism powered by propoganda. "This is the truth, this is why, don't question (my religious) authority, obey (my political orders)." That's where the disconnect happens. A religious leader says something for secular reasons, but justifies it in religious terms.

I doubt we disagree on this point. If you do, please correct my misunderstanding.

I once pariticipated in a conversation with some people whose opinion I valued, whose expertise I respected regarding some questions I had about "But what is the church say about that?", or words to that effect. The reply (from deacons and the pastor) was unsatisfyingly zen-like: "YOU are the church. What do you say?" Now I have greatly simplified the discussion I had, but the truth of the matter has grown on me.

You could say, since the terrorists believe it is in the name of Islam, it therefore is. By the same logic, if I say it is not in the name of Islam, then it is not. Viewed in these extremely narrow terms, we have a pretty useless stalemate. I'm not bent on convincing you of the truth about any religious tradition. I sense considerable hostility on your part to the whole notion. Live and let live.

But Islam is not about terrorism. If it were, how do you account for the hundreds of millions of Muslims who are not terrorists? Are they not Muslims then? Lapsed? Slacking backsliders? Closet Baptists?

The texts, the teachings and the actions of the overwhelming majority of the followers of Islam all, all, indicate peace and not terror.

I thought he was referring to a different picture of a different monk. One that was happier, more carefree, and maybe in something like this ...

Yeah, that's the sidecar, but with this Monk...

http://www.flakmag.com/tv/images/monk.jpg

Now you've lost me. :confused:

That monk is great tang.

Kill em all, let God sort them out.

I'm w/ you, Bruce. :neutral: