electron'sbro

(Source: jager)

(Source: nevver)

kurafire:

adactio:

Hate E-mails with Richard Dawkins (musical version) (via tolka)

The best part is how he reads it all out exactly as misspelled by the respective original authors.

Sir David Attenborough (via tmblg)

(Source: reddit.com, via tmblg)

Thoughts From Glenn Beck on Church Plan to Burn Koran

I know, right? Glenn Beck said that. It’s actually a good, small read.

(via kurafire)

lafix:

That’s comparable to asking that no Christian churches be built near the Oklahoma City bombing site.  Timothy McVeigh was active in the Christian Identity movement, a profoundly racist and theocratic form of faith.  So, we should lump all Christians in with his fanatical beliefs?

My point was, a mosque is a place of worship that should not be excluded from any location due to the behavior of the fanatical fringe of that faith just because the ignorant aren’t capable of drawing the distinction between the two.  That she’s vocal about supporting that type of exclusion against an entire faith is narrow-minded and will only perpetuate the belief that certain faiths are lesser and and/or wrong.

First of all, I think your Timothy McVeigh example may be false in fact. I did some quick research and Wikipedia referenced a number of sources that indicate McVeigh was not particularly religious, apparently having (at least once) said that he was an agnostic.  Secondly, I think it is also a false analogy. The terrorists that attacked the World Trade Centre were probably still rational beings, even if they were fervent believers in a militant ideology. On the other hand, even if McVeigh was religious, I think it is clear that he was mentally unbalanced. If I ever learn that the Army actually did implant a microchip into his buttocks, then I will take that back. For now I maintain that his religious affiliation is irrelevant.

Secondly, I’m just going to point out that at the time I made the above statement, I didn’t know the proposed site was blocks away from the World Trade Centre. I saw the Palin tweets calling the proposal the “Ground Zero mosque plan” and you said nothing to refute that; I assumed the proposal was for a mosque directly over the WTC site. Armed with that new knowledge, I don’t have any problem with the proposal (not that I did before). However, I’ll ignore that information - and assume the mosque was to be built right on the WTC site - to make my next point.

You say “a mosque is a place of worship that should not be excluded from any location due to the behavior of the fanatical fringe of that faith…” and I assume you extend that to other religions. However, if a place of worship should not be excluded from a location due to a tragic historical event, is there any reason that a place of worship should be excluded? I’m sure that uncountable applications for places of worship have been rejected by local councils and city planning authorities for lesser reasons than the possibility that a building will cause emotional harm to others. Should the religious be given free reign to build places of worship wherever they want?

I feel I’m getting close to making my own straw man argument here, so let me bring it back. It should be clear to all that the establishment of cultural and religious institutions in places of mass destruction may add insult to injury. Is it entirely rational? No, but can you blame people for losing some control of their rational mind when their emotions have been intensely engaged? You cannot. Even as a Stoic I acknowledge it is probably a physiological impossibility for us to completely isolate and ignore our emotions. We are not Vulcans, Sarah Palin especially.

If people embrace the development of a mosque near the WTC site I would class that as an example of virtue. If they don’t, I understand why and wouldn’t necessarily assume that it was due to bigotry. That’s all I have to say.

Isaac Asimov

I do not believe there is a God. To my way of thinking, ‘right’ and ‘good’ are conditions to be considered and ideally, self-imposed. No-one ever has a God given right to any elite status, particularly victory.

In most competitive arenas - like sport - clear rules are laid and agreed upon. Victory is deserved (and generally achieved) by performing better than your opponent.

In the most competitive arenas - like war - rules may be unclear or disagreed upon. Victory is deserved (though not necessarily achieved) by the side that internalises a more ethical approach to war and life during peace, not by performing better.

That is why, when Dick Cheney spoke to the West Point graduating class of 2007, he was right in speech.

“As Army officers on duty in the war on terror, you will now face enemies who oppose and despise everything you know to be right, every notion of upright conduct and character, and every belief you consider worth fighting for and living for. Capture one of these killers, and he’ll be quick to demand the protections of the Geneva Convention and the Constitution of the United States.”

It certainly speaks less of militants that they would not give their enemies protection under the Geneva Convention, but it shouldn’t matter that they want them. The fact that this dichotomy exists is simply one of many contributing proofs that the West is more deserving of victory. However, the days that people like Cheney failed to hold themselves to a self-imposed ethical standard, were the days that we became less deserving of victory.

And that is why he was wrong.