^
It is called "apocalypticism", and it is in my opinion the real modern threat of religion facing this world. It is what should have been made much more explicit in Bill Maher's Religulous, as it was really at the heart of everything that is wrong with religion.
I remember reading a book that talked about rationalism in communist leadership.
They based it around a lack of belief in an afterlife or a heaven in hell, so these communist leaders believed that they had to reach their goals in their lifetime.
Hence the revolutionary saying, World Socialism in our lifetime.
That mind set created a ruthlessness that powered the whole Soviet state security apparatus.
and because there was no fear of heaven or hell, these leaders could combine their fear of their life ending without making their mark with no fear of any cost to their actions.
Stalin very much had that mindset, and I'm convinced that he also suffered from some very significant mental health issues that made him a fairly brilliant monster.
The crazies in charge of Iran believe the opposite, they believe that their life work based in religion is a virtue that will get them their final reward, and heaven help who gets in your way.
If you wack a bunch of kids, its ok, they were innocents and will get into heaven.
If you kill an enemy they will serve you in heaven.
If you carry out a great act of violence in the name of your religion, enyoy your virgins.
Leadership mindsets are just very interesting.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I see a bunch of CP'ers have been media brainwashed into believing that Iran is some monster aggressive nation chomping at the bit to nuke the globe.....lol...
I see a bunch of CP'ers have been media brainwashed into believing that Iran is some monster aggressive nation chomping at the bit to nuke the globe.....lol...
I think they'll just start with Israel.
The Following User Says Thank You to T@T For This Useful Post:
I see a bunch of CP'ers have been media brainwashed into believing that Iran is some monster aggressive nation chomping at the bit to nuke the globe.....lol...
Depends on how you define aggressive, but their funding of radical terrorist groups, and their exporting of arms and training programs makes them an aggressive nation.
Just because their not marching into countries with armies and tanks doesn't make them a Bastian of peace and good will.
And I trust this theocracy with nuclear weapons as much as I trust a doctor with his medical degree from DeVry with my surgical needs.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
I see a bunch of CP'ers have been media brainwashed into believing that Iran is some monster aggressive nation chomping at the bit to nuke the globe.....lol...
Your understanding of the middle east and its history is so beyond stupid its sad. I'd quote books for you to read but I know you wouldn't read them and I'd get the treatment of Peter using links as a form of debate.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
not that i don't agree that Iran and every other Sharia law country is stuck living in the 15th century, but i didn't see this part before
Quote:
"This lady is accused of two crimes," Hojatoleslam Sharifi, the judiciary chief of Eastern Azarbaijan province, said at a news conference Monday, the semi-official Iran Student's News Agency reported. "One is adultery, which is punishable by stoning to death, and the other is assisting in her husband's murder. She is currently serving 10 years for helping to kill her husband."
so why the hell is Iran even mentioning the adultery part? if they just said they were executing a woman for killing her husband, there would be no international outrage
Sure there would, she's a woman, and executing a woman is going to create international backlash no matter what the crime is.
The problem in this case is the court system and the devaluation of a woman's testimony under their law.
If I remember right the evidence against her for her part in the death of her husband was pretty circumstantial, but given that a man's testimony weighs more then a woman's there's problems.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Sure there would, she's a woman, and executing a woman is going to create international backlash no matter what the crime is.
The problem in this case is the court system and the devaluation of a woman's testimony under their law.
If I remember right the evidence against her for her part in the death of her husband was pretty circumstantial, but given that a man's testimony weighs more then a woman's there's problems.
I think you could replace this with the word the "fabricated"
At least that's what her (and the dead fathers) kids and lawyer have said.
Sure there would, she's a woman, and executing a woman is going to create international backlash no matter what the crime is.
The problem in this case is the court system and the devaluation of a woman's testimony under their law.
If I remember right the evidence against her for her part in the death of her husband was pretty circumstantial, but given that a man's testimony weighs more then a woman's there's problems.
I'm fairly sure women have been executed in the US without abnormal backlash. The issue here is the gender issue as a whole and not specific to this case.
Christians and Jews get made fun of all the time on TV and in movies, yet they never threaten to blow people up because of it. muslims claim that islam is the religion of peace, yet if that's so why are they the source for the biggest terrorist acts of the last few decades?
I can't help but think there is some irony in pointing out the actions of terrorist organizations in some countries when a religious state has been bulldozing peoples' homes and another state where nobody gets elected unless they're Christian and people make a big deal out of the head of state not thanking god on tv has actually invaded another country without justification.
Things must look so different from the other side.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
The Following User Says Thank You to JohnnyB For This Useful Post:
I remember reading a book that talked about rationalism in communist leadership.
They based it around a lack of belief in an afterlife or a heaven in hell, so these communist leaders believed that they had to reach their goals in their lifetime.
Hence the revolutionary saying, World Socialism in our lifetime.
That mind set created a ruthlessness that powered the whole Soviet state security apparatus.
and because there was no fear of heaven or hell, these leaders could combine their fear of their life ending without making their mark with no fear of any cost to their actions.
Stalin very much had that mindset, and I'm convinced that he also suffered from some very significant mental health issues that made him a fairly brilliant monster.
The crazies in charge of Iran believe the opposite, they believe that their life work based in religion is a virtue that will get them their final reward, and heaven help who gets in your way.
If you wack a bunch of kids, its ok, they were innocents and will get into heaven.
If you kill an enemy they will serve you in heaven.
If you carry out a great act of violence in the name of your religion, enyoy your virgins.
Leadership mindsets are just very interesting.
Do you think? I'm asking honestly. I really think the highest leaders or the CEO's are that 10% of pop (they say more now) that are/or straddle the line of sociopath. I think the majority of leaders (not all, there have been good and bad that have truly believed in the cause they served) are that genetic make up of people that understand logic over morals. There have already been many comparisons and studies.
EDIT: Just as they say the majority of radical Islam leaders don't really believe in 77 virgins (or whatever it is) they just know how to motivate.
Also remember, in a lot of these poorer countries, books are still a luxury. Knowledge is power, the leaders know, and use it. It's why they don't educate the public.
Saddam had access to everything we did (and probably more) but he knew his people didn't.
EDIT x2; I actually think the mindset of leaders is quite sane (though sociopthic and angry). If it wasn't we would have had a random nuclear strike already. They are just using their people.
I'm fairly sure women have been executed in the US without abnormal backlash. The issue here is the gender issue as a whole and not specific to this case.
51 women have been executed in the US since 1900, 9 since 2000, with very little backlash.
__________________
When you do a signature and don't attribute it to anyone, it's yours. - Vulcan
The Following User Says Thank You to valo403 For This Useful Post:
Your understanding of the middle east and its history is so beyond stupid its sad. I'd quote books for you to read but I know you wouldn't read them and I'd get the treatment of Peter using links as a form of debate.
LOL ....you can keep your stupid book quotes. If you have an intricate knowledge of histroy then you know that American intelligence has been interfering in Iran's business for decades. When you get down to it Iran will have nukes if they want to have nukes. And what will happen when Iran has nukes?
Nothing ....followed by the sound of crickets. No "wiping Israel off the map", no nothing.
Why?..because Amerika has nukes, Israel has nukes, the UK has nukes, France has nukes, you get the idea...
Nukes are first and foremost a good psychological deterrent. Their use comes with dire consequences and everyone knows it. Maybe Israel could take the diplomatic lead here and turn their nukes over to the UN??
This is just another over-hyped propaganda sales routine like the Iraq war was, and you'll fall for it like a sucker because you think its America's role to bomb other people into the stone age because Iran doesn't share their western ideologies. Empty rhetoric is empty rhetoric.
LOL ....you can keep your stupid book quotes. If you have an intricate knowledge of histroy then you know that American intelligence has been interfering in Iran's business for decades. When you get down to it Iran will have nukes if they want to have nukes. And what will happen when Iran has nukes?
Nothing ....followed by the sound of crickets. No "wiping Israel off the map", no nothing.
Why?..because Amerika has nukes, Israel has nukes, the UK has nukes, France has nukes, you get the idea...
Nukes are first and foremost a good psychological deterrent. Their use comes with dire consequences and everyone knows it. Maybe Israel could take the diplomatic lead here and turn their nukes over to the UN??
This is just another over-hyped propaganda sales routine like the Iraq war was, and you'll fall for it like a sucker because you think its America's role to bomb other people into the stone age because Iran doesn't share their western ideologies. Empty rhetoric is empty rhetoric.
The problem isn't Iran having nukes per se, it's who gets the nukes after Iran has them. Iran has shown in the past that they will support militant organizations that are not directly tied to a recognized political state. This throws the psychological deterrent angle out the window. When you throw religious fundamentalism into the picture, the rules change drastically.
Iran having a nuke is only a little scary, but Hamas having one would be a disaster waiting to happen.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 12-26-2011 at 10:52 PM.
Nukes are first and foremost a good psychological deterrent.
So your in favor of a regime like Iran possessing them?
First and foremost nukes are only a deterrent if your the USA, they are the only reason none have gone off since other country's developed them. But putting them in the hands of Iran would be like having them on the open market for every terrorist group on the planet.
Don't be surprised or shocked when Iran's nuclear facilities are flattened by stealth bombers. there's zero chance the UN will allow them nukes.
I can't help but think there is some irony in pointing out the actions of terrorist organizations in some countries when a religious state has been bulldozing peoples' homes and another state where nobody gets elected unless they're Christian and people make a big deal out of the head of state not thanking god on tv has actually invaded another country without justification.
Things must look so different from the other side.
Interesting points. Can you provide some details about (I assume you mean) Israel bulldozing homes?
Just so you know, Israel is not the religious state you might think it is. There are many other countries with far more formal government mandated religions, and most of Israel's neighbors have laws limiting other religions (besides their majority). Israel on the other hand has nearly zero limitations from religion, and even allows Sharia law and other freedoms beyond even Canada. Israel is a pretty good country to live in if you are religious, of any religion.
