The Religion Thread!

Harmsway wrote:

Alan Jacobs comments on Ross Douthat's BAD RELIGION.

(For those who don't know, Douthat is a commentator for the New York Times, and his book, BAD RELIGION: HOW WE BECAME A NATION OF HERETICS is making quite a stir.)

Interesting read. I tend to agree with Ross' "less consoling explanation", detailed in the second last paragraph of the commentary.

Found this article, Gay-for-Payload, thanks to Mark Steyn's National Review column. I had never heard this story before. I mean, I'd heard of the assassination attempt on the Saudi Prince, but not what the bomber had to go through in order to fit the explosives up his arse. And if you Google his name, you'll see pictures of what was left of him after the explosion.

Not only did the original "underwear bomber" Abdullah Hassan al-Asiri hide explosives in his rectum to assassinate Saudi Prince Muhammad bin Nayef—they met in 2009 after the 22-year-old holy warrior "feigned repentance for his jihadi views"—but al-Asiri apparently had fellow jihadis repeatedly sodomize him to "widen" his anus in order to accommodate the explosives— all in accordance with the fatwas [religious edicts] of Islamic clerics.

A 2010 Arabic news video that is making the rounds on the Internet gives the details. Apparently a cleric, one Abu al-Dema al-Qasab, informed jihadis of an "innovative and unprecedented way to execute martyrdom operations: place explosive capsules in your anus. However, to undertake this jihadi approach you must agree to be sodomized for a while to widen your anus so it can hold the explosives."

Others inquired further by asking for formal fatwas. Citing his desire for "martyrdom and the virgins of paradise," one jihadi, (possibly al-Asiri himself) asked another sheikh, "Is it permissible for me to let one of the jihadi brothers sodomize me to widen my anus if the intention is good?"

The irony of this entire story is that al-Asiri failed to kill the bin Nayef, so he essentially was sodomized for nothing. I'm sure he hated every minute of it ;)

http://www.advocate.com/politics/military/2012/07/12/religious-exemption-sodomy-suicide-bombers

The Arabs deny it, of course.

Largo's Shark wrote:

http://www.advocate.com/politics/military/2012/07/12/religious-exemption-sodomy-suicide-bombers

The Arabs deny it, of course.

But of course.

I enjoyed reading some of the comments in the feedback section because many of those people are desperately trying to accuse anyone who dares say anything critical of Muslims of being "Islamaphobic", when the very organizations and religion that these knuckleheads are defending would kill them where they stood if they had the chance.

Many of the people in that feedback section cannot be reasoned with. They believe that the terrorists are a "lunatic fringe", but I disagree. I think they are far more representative of modern-day, mainstream Islam than they want to admit. But these people, including the Southern Poverty Law Center, will have to find out the hard way what kind of threat they are facing.

A couple of the "outraged" comments.

Quote :

It is upsetting enough that The Advocate has published this article "as is," without verifying the authenticity of the alleged fatwa and/or the identity of the alleged cleric Abu al-Dema al-Qasab, who we know, for certain, is not the person depicted in the photo above and most likely not even a real person at all. But it is also extremely saddening to read the hateful, Islamophobic comments below by fellow readers, in which hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide are vilified on the basis of this erroneous interpretation of one single utterance. We are a minority, a group of people who are deemed different. For us to generalize about another group of others and bully them in public, albeit verbally and on the virtual pages of an online publication, is extremely unfortunate, to say the least.

I would like to reiterate Mo's demand for a full retraction of this article, and with it the racist, Islamophobic comments that resulted from it. And while I am not a fan of censorship, I would urge the editors to think of a mechanism by which to control such outbursts of ugly bigotry as we can see displayed below on its.

Quote :

This is not only a racist article, but homo-nationalist too. Have any of these so called journalists read Edward Said's Orientalism? If the journalist could speak arabic, this would not be a story. Stop quoting right-wing think tanks. Whose side are you on? Please see this article for the actual translation. http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/benjamin-doherty/sodomy-jihad-venerable-lgbt-magazine-advocate-spreads-vile-islamophobic-hoax

Please retract this article now, it is insulting. Especially to gay arabs.

Quote :

LJ Rhodes Exhibit A: "So, I think I'll start taking orders for T-shirts that say "Anal for Allah!"

Would you say this in front of a Muslim/Arab or just online?

Read the book " Desiring Arabs " by Joseph Massad and get back to me.

It's racist because there is a long long history of representing Muslims/Arabs as sexually depraved, using spurious sources (like this article), and suggesting a civilizational difference between the West and the East using arguments about sexuality.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

http://www.advocate.com/politics/military/2012/07/12/religious-exemption-sodomy-suicide-bombers

The Arabs deny it, of course.

But of course.

I enjoyed reading some of the comments in the feedback section because many of those people are desperately trying to accuse anyone who dares say anything critical of Muslims of being "Islamaphobic", when the very organizations and religion that these knuckleheads are defending would kill them where they stood if they had the chance.

Many of the people in that feedback section cannot be reasoned with. They believe that the terrorists are a "lunatic fringe", but I disagree. I think they are far more representative of modern-day, mainstream Islam than they want to admit. But these people, including the Southern Poverty Law Center, will have to find out the hard way what kind of threat they are facing.

Naturally.

Don't you know that only Christians are dangerous, radical, and intolerant?

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Found this article, Gay-for-Payload, thanks to Mark Steyn's National Review column. I had never heard this story before. I mean, I'd heard of the assassination attempt on the Saudi Prince, but not what the bomber had to go through in order to fit the explosives up his arse. And if you Google his name, you'll see pictures of what was left of him after the explosion.

Not only did the original "underwear bomber" Abdullah Hassan al-Asiri hide explosives in his rectum to assassinate Saudi Prince Muhammad bin Nayef—they met in 2009 after the 22-year-old holy warrior "feigned repentance for his jihadi views"—but al-Asiri apparently had fellow jihadis repeatedly sodomize him to "widen" his anus in order to accommodate the explosives— all in accordance with the fatwas [religious edicts] of Islamic clerics.

A 2010 Arabic news video that is making the rounds on the Internet gives the details. Apparently a cleric, one Abu al-Dema al-Qasab, informed jihadis of an "innovative and unprecedented way to execute martyrdom operations: place explosive capsules in your anus. However, to undertake this jihadi approach you must agree to be sodomized for a while to widen your anus so it can hold the explosives."

Others inquired further by asking for formal fatwas. Citing his desire for "martyrdom and the virgins of paradise," one jihadi, (possibly al-Asiri himself) asked another sheikh, "Is it permissible for me to let one of the jihadi brothers sodomize me to widen my anus if the intention is good?"

The irony of this entire story is that al-Asiri failed to kill the bin Nayef, so he essentially was sodomized for nothing. I'm sure he hated every minute of it ;)

Fundamentalism ... it's a pain in the ass.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

[i]Not only did the original "underwear bomber" Abdullah Hassan al-Asiri hide explosives in his rectum to assassinate Saudi Prince Muhammad bin Nayef—they met in 2009 after the 22-year-old holy warrior "feigned repentance for his jihadi views"—but al-Asiri apparently had fellow jihadis repeatedly sodomize him to "widen" his anus in order to accommodate the explosives— all in accordance with the fatwas [religious edicts] of Islamic clerics.

Fundamentalism ... it's a pain in the ass.

Probably a good thing he didn't have Mexican for dinner the night before the assassination.

And after reading that article, I get a feeling John Travolta's going to be converting to Islam.

Thanks for that, Harms. Brilliant .

'No longer has the strength' is the reason being given ... I thought Popes were in the habit (no 'nun pun' intended) of staying in the job until they dropped? John Paul the second was still being wheeled out onto balconies long after it looked like he still knew what the hell was going on.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't the last time a Pope resigned 600 years ago?

Largo's Shark wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't the last time a Pope resigned 600 years ago?

Yes, heard that today.

Just a question: I understand the Pope is stepping down because of health issues and I can appreciate that. But what EXACTLY does the POPE do NOWADAYS? You'd hardly ever see the POPE leave the Vatican. It's not like he is constantly traveling the World like a President or a Prime Minister does and constantly dealing with Political and Economical World Affairs and meeting Head of State of other countries. Nor is he leading a nation through economic hard times or having to command an Army fighting a war far far overseas.

I hear the next pope might be the first black one.

Here's a pic of Benedict and his likely successor:

CJB wrote:

I hear the next pope might be the first black one.

So will The Vatican be referred to as "Da House"? Or will he be known as The Popizzy?

j7wild wrote:

Just a question: I understand the Pope is stepping down because of health issues and I can appreciate that. But what EXACTLY does the POPE do NOWADAYS? You'd hardly ever see the POPE leave the Vatican. It's not like he is constantly traveling the World like a President or a Prime Minister does and constantly dealing with Political and Economical World Affairs and meeting Head of State of other countries. Nor is he leading a nation through economic hard times or having to command an Army fighting a war far far overseas.

If you really want to know there are plenty of books on the subject, and they make for fascinating reading.

Wearing a silly hat, waving at people and protecting paedophiles must be more tiring work than we thought.

Not sure how many Catholics are here, but I'm happy we have an Argentinean Pope! Bergoglio is a really nice and humble man, I met him briefly in 2008 with school. Really, Argentina has had many violence in the last years - riots, corruption, insecurity, lots of really bad things! Hope this is really a sign of hope!

I don't know what it means to be religious and never understood the question. It's seems like it should be a simple question but it's not for me. I love the Hindu religion and all their epic texts like the Mahabharata, Upanishads and Puranas. They read more like something from an advanced culture hundreds of thousands of years into the future.It's mind blowing. It's the same with Buddhism and it's books like the Shobogenzo or the works of Nagarjuna...the words prove themselves. I have no doubt Siddhartha was real and his words passed down prove themselves and became more advanced as time went on and hit the Zen stage. Depending on the type of Buddhism it's not necessarily a religion in the traditional sense.

As far as Christ goes I assume one could read a few million books attempting to prove his existence and just as many trying to disprove it so that seems rather pointless. So all I will be really left with is my intuition and instincts when it comes right down to it and I believe he is who he say's he is. I never really troubled myself all that much with the question of belief vs disbelief or even the concept of faith. It was more just a question of love for me and I always loved Jesus because how can one not? As far as concepts like the afterlife, heaven, hell, of course I have no idea. I don't even know how I got here so it's not something to worry about. If the atheist view of when you are dead you are dead is the truth then again nothing to worry about as that's it and I don't fear death. I realize I don't really know anything and existence itself is so improbable and strange that nothing would surprise me. All I am left with is that very childlike feeling that I love Jesus and I feel the same emotions towards Krishna, The Buddha. So I really have no idea if that is considered religious or not.

If it's defined as a type of good or moral person than I am certainly not that.