violence problem? ya think?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Flint

As long as people are content with catagorizing themselves into these impossibly monolithic groups, and de-humanizing those who are "against" them, we will keep getting bamboozled by the us-versus-them politics of boogeyman-ism.

Are you content with the categorizing happening in this thread? Do you placidly accept the de-humanizing of others? Does this oversimplification of people and events reduce the world to shapes and sizes you can more easily comprehend? Does this represent the limit of your understanding?

It's not a game. Stereotypes and prejudices are not useful tools for understanding the truth. The map is not the terrain.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by BigV

Stereotypes and prejudices are not useful tools for understanding the truth. The map is not the terrain.

We have no direct experience of the terrain; we know it only through elaborate systems of maps.

Of course, *your* maps are better than everybody else's, being free of stereotypes and prejudice :-)

[BigV]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

We have no direct experience of the terrain; we know it only through elaborate systems of maps.

I'm certain you did not misunderstand me, MaggieL. I'm not in the mood to spar with you on the quality of my analogies.

For anyone else in need of a tedious explanation of my example, I intended "stereotypes and prejudices" to be represented by "map" and "understanding the truth" to be represented by "terrain". By saying that the map is not the terrain I meant that even though we can use a map to imagine the terrain, to help us shape our ideas of something beyond our direct experience, the terrain is what it is, regardless of the map. The map may be more or less accurate, but it is an abstraction, and the terrain is the reality. Stereotypes and prejudices exist, they have a function, but they are not the reality. You can complain loudly that the map shows the road crosses the river, but if the bridge is washed out when you get there, what happens? Fold your little map into a boat and sail across?

Specifically, MaggieL, if it is indeed true that

Originally Posted by MaggieL

... all the Muslim people I know personally are indeed peaceful.

then you do have direct experience of the terrain. Additionally, you may have an elaborate system of maps. But responding to the map while ignoring the terrain is not wise.

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Of course, *your* maps are better than everybody else's, being free of stereotypes and prejudice :-)

Well, duh! Right. That's helpful. If you wish to share my map and join me as I travel toward the truth, I welcome you. But if you're going to yammer on about why the road isn't the same color blue as it is on the map, I'll let you out at the next light.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by BigV

Specifically, MaggieL, if it is indeed true that...then you do have direct experience of the terrain. Additionally, you may have an elaborate system of maps. But responding to the map while ignoring the terrain is not wise.

Experience is itself "an elaborate system of maps", too. Perception operates by trying to construct a model--a map--by interpreting sensory input. But it's still a system of maps and models, from beginning to end. Nobody has "direct experience of the terrain". When you believe you do (which is apparently a part of the map you're offering to share), you're actually only reifying one particular map.

No, thanks...I'll steer by my own lights.

[Happy Monkey]

Just think of "Life of Brian". No greater animosity than between the Judean People's front and the People's Front of Judea.

Splitters!

How are concealed weapon laws and Christianity related?
I feel the laws protecting concealed weapons should be protected... I am not a Christian, nor do I think it has anything to do with religion in any way. I just don't see how you make that jump.

[tw]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

How are concealed weapon laws and Christianity related?

Do all Christians fear? Of course not. Do we all need concealed weapons to be safer. Of course not. Did you get that far into the post? Good. "Mission Accomplished". Who has the next question.....

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

Do we all need concealed weapons to be safer. Of course not.

Whatsamatter, tw, did you flunk the Instacheck? Was it just a past felony, or was it a record of involuntary mental comittment? I know *I'm* safer with my sidearm. But you might not be...if you're not up to the responsibilty, you should stay away from it. They defiinately are not for "us all".

Originally Posted by tw

Do all Christians fear? Of course not. Do we all need concealed weapons to be safer. Of course not. Did you get that far into the post? Good. "Mission Accomplished". Who has the next question.....

Again, feeling safer has nothing to do with it. You keep making assumptions and speaking for others, does not work.
Someone asked you?

[BigV]

tw is nothing if not agile.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

You don't find the thought of your everlasting soul burning in hell for all eternity and being told so by someone who is supposed to be a figure of authority threatening?The Catholic religion is based on threats designed to keep people in line. There is no difference.

Nonsense. 'God will hurt you later' is very, very different from 'I'm going to hurt you now.' The former only works on believers, the latter applies to everyone.

[Aliantha]

Well that depends on whether you think your body or your soul is more important.

[Aliantha]

In any case, both statements are motivated by religious beliefs and as such, demonstrate that there's not much difference between the two for the believers of either one. A Catholic is motivated to follow the laws of the Church in order to avoid going to hell. A Muslim is motivated to follow the laws of the Church in order to get into heaven.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

A Catholic is motivated to follow the laws of the Church in order to avoid going to hell. A Muslim is motivated to follow the laws of the Church in order to get into heaven.

I'm a Catholic. I'm motivated by a desire to leave this world better than when I arrived. A medieval construct of hell does not figure into it. In my experience, there is a vanishing minority for whom hell is a motivator and that is terrible but please don't assume that motivates most educated first world Catholics. It may be that in places like the Phillipines the lack of rationality in the faith is comparable to that of extremists in other religions and there your comparison might hold water.

We (American Catholics) have our nuts but they don't hold much power because of the structure of the Church. The mentality for most of the anti-rationalists is that their passion for the Church is expressed by a willingness to submit themselves to the authority of Church leaders, whose natural conservatism is a buttress against radicalism. I normally prefer decentralized power but that is not working for Islam right now and maybe doesn't always work where the dangerous rather than uplifting passions of religion are concerned. That heaven motivator you write of is probably much more powerful in a third world situation as well since the great masses of people have little tying them to this world. Unfortunately, there are some unhealthy ideas in the world as to how heaven is to be attained because of the fragmented nature of Islam. As always, I could be completely off base.

[Spexxvet]

Is there a difference between "convert or die" and "kill all who are not our religion"?