Charlie Hebdo Massacre

Religious Extremism and the Road to Civilization

A system of beliefs that cannot rely on persuasion to win over doubters is a weak and defective one.

|

Charlie
Guillaume / Wikimedia Commons

Sigmund Freud said the founder of civilization was the first person who hurled an insult instead of a rock. He was almost right. The true founder was the first person to respond to an insult with an insult of his own.

Some modern-day people have yet to reach the stage achieved by some of our ancient forebears. Muslims who treat offensive depictions of the prophet Muhammad as grounds for execution are the most conspicuous examples of that tragic failure to evolve.

In the 21st century, it is a true shock to be reminded that anyone could regard a cartoon as a legitimate cause to slaughter human beings. All of us have been confronted with pronouncements and images we find despicable or unspeakable. But we have overcome the childish impulse to use violence to punish or silence the offender.

We in Western societies almost always defer to the wisdom of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who said the basis of the First Amendment is "not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate."

That sentiment is so familiar to American ears that it's easy to forget how truly revolutionary it is, and how recently it became generally accepted. It was just half a century ago that Americans were beaten and murdered in some places for doing nothing more than publicly advocating black equality.

It was only a century ago that hundreds of people were prosecuted for opposing U.S participation in World War I. Socialist leader Eugene Debs was sentenced to 10 years in prison for telling an audience, "You need to know that you are fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder." Someone was executed in Spain for religious heresy at the behest of the Roman Catholic Church in 1826.

In having adherents who believe they have a duty to stamp out intolerable ideas by any means necessary, Islam is no different from many religions as they have been practiced at some point in history—or from many political movements the world has seen. It is unusual only because it still has a significant number of such followers today, acting on their convictions.

They are a tiny minority of the world's Muslims, though. A 2013 Pew Research survey found, "Half or more of Muslims in most countries surveyed say that suicide bombing and other acts of violence that target civilians can never be justified in the name of Islam"—with support for such tactics declining in recent years. The number actually committing such crimes is a tiny share of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims.

Any support for terrorism is too much, and atrocities like the attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris implicate some interpretations of Islam. But we should avoid the smug assumption that we are blameless or that religion plays no role in our errors.

White American Christians are especially inclined to favor the use of torture against suspected terrorists. Does that mean there is something inherently savage in the teachings of Jesus? Does it mean Christianity is incapable of embracing peace and tolerance?

The process of civilizing humanity is a long, slow ordeal that includes occasional reversals, and we are further along than many Muslim societies. Westerners are hardly perfect, but we can take immense pride in making the sanctity of individual conscience a centerpiece of our lives. The war against Islamist extremism is a war between the ideals of free thought and the urge to enforce uniform beliefs at the point of a gun.

What most Westerners long ago realized is something Muslim extremists have not: In the battle of ideas, reason is the only weapon. For any cause to resort to murder and persecution against those who disagree is an admission of failure.

A system of beliefs that cannot rely on persuasion to win over doubters is a weak and defective one. As the English Puritan poet John Milton said of truth, "Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?"

He wrote that in 1644, a long time before most Christians or most English came to truly practice what he preached. The modern groups that have yet to arrive at that wisdom will probably get there eventually. It can't happen soon enough.

NEXT: The Charlie Hebdo march: where were the American leaders? [UPDATE: White House response added]

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. They are a tiny minority of the world’s Muslims, though. A 2013 Pew Research survey found, “Half or more of Muslims in most countries surveyed say that suicide bombing and other acts of violence that target civilians can never be justified in the name of Islam”

    Well, which is it, half or more or a tiny minority?

    1. Even if it were 10%, which is far lower than the number who actually do support terrorists, that number is way too high to be accurately described as a ‘tiny minority’.

  2. The number actually committing such crimes is a tiny share of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims

    And if you’re one in a million in China there are over a thousand guys just like you.

    1. Military action, by a government or any other organization, relies on many people not actively engaging in combat. That, somewhere around half of Muslims, provides the support network for “small minority” that are actually engaged in combat.

      A major portion of winning WWII was destroying the spiritual and industrial support within Germany. To regard the LARGE percentage of Muslims who support terrorism as unimportant since they are not the ones setting off the bombs is stupid.

      In fact, if 98% of Muslims actually opposed these terrorist acts, they would seldom happen and the terrorist would be immediately exposed. The terrorists would have no funding, no place to hide, and no source of replacement troops.

      1. Think we’re agreeing on that. A large population means a “tiny share” still is a lot of people.

        1. But it’s not even a tiny share. 30%, 40% or 50% or more, is not a tiny subset of the total.

          1. The actual commission of the crime is certainly not that high, but the support is up in those numbers.

            1. And the actual commission of the crime would be scarcely possible or as common without huge amounts of support from the public.

      2. That’s a really good point.

  3. I believe Muhammad had people executed for poems insulting him.

    1. Bukhari (11:626) – [Muhammad said:] “I decided to order a man to lead the prayer and then take a flame to burn all those, who had not left their houses for the prayer, burning them alive inside their homes.”

      1. You might be thinking of this one. A Jew who got too mouthy about Muslim atrocities.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka‘b_ibn_al-Ashraf

        1. There was also the poetess ‘Asma’ bint Marwan. Muhammad wouldn’t have lasted 1 second in a rap battle.

          1. Pretty wild how he transferred his own thin-skinned rage onto an entire religion.

            1. Hey,he’s Allah’s messenger,what they gonna do? It shows these types of violence was in Islam from the start. The there is the whole ‘Cleansing Mecca’ thing.

            2. Reminds me of Marx and his followers.

  4. “Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?”

    Umm…

    Obamacare; WMD; Party of Science; et al

    1. And these things were decided in free and open encounters?

      I don’t think the powers that be and the MFM have any interest in letting THAT happen.

      “We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.” – A nation that elects someone who says this is not a serious one.

      1. True. But, the info on all these things was available and millions of Americans still supported something that wasn’t true.

        My point (not well expressed) was simply that the idea that in any confrontation between truth and lies that the truth will always win is somewhat facile.

        1. If anything has been shown to win more often lately, it is that lies and bullshit will win if they make the peoples feelz better. The truth doesn’t seem to matter at all.

        2. Agreed – many times the lack of a free and open encounter is due to the failure of the individual to make it happen.

          But our institutions that are SUPPOSED to ensure these free and open encounters take place are failing us badly.

          [Candy Crowley’s debate with Mitt Romney comes to mind, along with the Pelosi stupidity I quoted before].

          MFM Delenda Est!

  5. White American Christians are especially inclined to favor the use of torture against suspected terrorists.

    Almost got the whole article out without an obligatory, “But WASPS do bad things, too.” First of all, I’d love to see the data that justifies that statement. Second of all, even if it were true (which I do not stipulate), there is a fundamental (ha ha) difference between advocating the use of torture to gain intelligence about future attacks (which I, for the record, don’t support) and committing murder because non-believers don’t follow the precepts of your religion.

    1. Our favorite chickenhawk will be along to tell you about the Crusades soon.

    2. White America Christians are, just possibly, rather better informed about Muslim atrocities against Christians worldwide than, say, people who depend on the (very Liberal Left Trendy Intellectual) mainstream media.

      I’m not saying that are justified in favoring the use of torture; that’s another argument. I’m saying that if they favor it, they have a compelling reason.

      1. I’m saying that if they favor it, they have a compelling reason.

        I agree torture is a no-go, but even if their reasons weren’t compelling per se, it’s still better than the superstitious rationales used to ruin and end lives in Islamic societies.

  6. “White American Christians are especially inclined to favor the use of torture against suspected terrorists. Does that mean there is something inherently savage in the teachings of Jesus?”

    Quite the paradox here in the U.S. when it comes to Christians. On the one side, there is some crazy, evil stuff in the Bible (I’m looking at you, Old Testament). On the other side, I doubt that a majority of self-professed Christians have even read the Bible.

    Footnote:
    I’ve always been struck by the fact that people can claim that the Bible is “the word of God” yet, even if they have one in their house, they’re not in the habit of looking at it. Man, if I had a book that I believed God had written, you better believe I’d read some of it everyday.

    1. I’ve read the Bible. The OT has a lot of contradictions on violence in the word and deeds of the prophets. The New Testament has no contradictions in the requirement for peaceful religious discourse.

      I’ve read as much of the Koran I could stand. The word and acts (in the Hadiths) of Mohamed are consistently in favor of the use of physical force to protect and spread Islam.

      1. Back in my religious period, I figured I should sit down and read the bible cover-to-cover. I have a strong stomach, but didn’t make it too far in before I got completely disgusted with the violence and narrowmindedness of the whole thing and quit. I do wonder how many of the religious among us have actually read the whole thing that they claim to believe.

        1. Not sure their is much point in reading the OT end to end. A lot of it is really boring history.

        2. Read it through and through more than once. Am happy to explain the “narrowmindedness” of it if you like. Even willing to explain the violence. You won’t believe me, but I would do it.

    2. “On the other side, I doubt that a majority of self-professed Christians have even read the Bible.”

      Is there a cite for that?

      1. I can’t give you a cite right now but, as a self-professed evangelical, there has been a steady stream of surveys over the last decade that would suggest low levels of biblical literacy among Christians. I think Libertarian’s claim is somewhat hyperbolic but many Christians read little of the bible and/or re-read favorite passages.

        1. Yup, there is massive Biblical ignorance among Christians.

          For example, would you believe that God’s preferred method of governance was one where there was no taxation* and “every man did as he thought right”**?

          *1 Samuel 8
          **last verse in the book of Judges

      2. Is there a cite for that?

        /whiny voice

      3. This isn’t it, but it would indicate they read it less than non-belibers do…
        http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetw…..-religious

        1. About half of Protestants (53%) cannot correctly identify Martin Luther as the person whose writings and actions inspired the Protestant Reformation, which made their religion a separate branch of Christianity.

          Which has jack shit to do with reading a bible.

          1. Hence my lead-in: “This isn’t it”

            A bit of a fallacy though since if I was going to decide to become ‘knowledgeable’ in a subject, maybe even one that affected my eternal life, I’d probably read more than just one book.

            1. I’d probably read more than just one book.

              Good thing you aren’t concerned about your eternal life then.

              /snark

        2. Also interesting is that Black Protestants and Latino Catholics scored at the bottom of the survey.

          But…Martin Lutherrrrrrrrr

          1. Which say a fair amount about the quality of the edcation those groups are getting. Be interesting to know who is going to which schools, hmmmm?

      4. “Is there a cite for that?”

        I was extrapolating from personal experience. I was raised Catholic. And if I’d been truly extrapolating, I would have said “tiny percentage” rather than less than a “majorty.”

        I confess (see what I did there?) that the Baptists I used to work with seemed to read their Bibles a lot more than Catholics.

        1. I confess (see what I did there?) that the Baptists I used to work with seemed to read their Bibles a lot more than Catholics.

          You do know that a major dispute during the Protestant Reformation was about whether the laity could read and interpret the bible for themselves don’t you? There’s also that slight disagreement over the concept of Sola Scriptura.

        2. Consider the historical background on that and it sort of just follows past practice.

          (And yes, I do see what you did; cute, but perhaps too much of an inside reference?)

    3. White American Christians are especially inclined to favor the use of torture against suspected terrorists. Does that mean there is something inherently savage in the teachings of Jesus?”

      Quite the paradox here in the U.S. when it comes to Christians. On the one side, there is some crazy, evil stuff in the Bible (I’m looking at you, Old Testament).

      Shouldn’t there be a poll to find out if Jooz are inclined to favor the use of torture?

      1. But what about the millennials?

        1. You won’t like what you find. Something approaching 30% of millennial American Muslims are supportive of suicide bombings, for instance.

    4. Perhaps a cursory reading isn’t indicated, rather a study of. Life long study of.

    5. Doesn’t the name Christian contain Christ whose existence was post dated wrt the Old Testament.

      I’m an atheist but seems to me the technically speaking CHRISTianity would by definition not include Old Testament concepts in the official litany.

      1. Definitely not.

        Timothy 3:16 …and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

  7. More defense of free speech from the Respectable

    But not all self-proclaimed satire is created equal.

    American satire is a spectrum, and on the other end of shows like The Daily Show are shows like South Park and Family Guy. They are often funny and use the ironic style of true satire like The Daily Show, but they lack the focused intent. They are pure entertainment, and always at the expense of whoever is being mocked. For example, while Stephen Colbert (a devout Catholic) mocks the misuse of religious authority, South Park just mocks the religious, or the concept of religion.

    Are you fucking kidding me?

    And that’s what Charlie Hebdo typically does…the last tweet before the attack was a cartoon of the head of ISIS offering politically correct holiday wishes. Muslims already face discrimination in Europe as in America, and mocking them is not courageous or beneficial…There’s just nothing brave about secular white men mocking everybody else. You can’t satirize intolerance by being intolerant.

    I guess not. What a gigantic, infected, weeping, pus-encrusted, yeast-riddled, lice-crawling pile of self-loathing pseudo-intellectual guilty vag this writer is. Fuck Politico and fuck him.

    1. But, to be fair, he has his bad points, too…

      1. She has her bad points, you misogynist rapist otherer!

        1. She’s in college? No wonder this seemed so…undergraduate. Cutie pie, though.

        2. Wait – rape was on the table?

          Did anyone tell Warty that was an option?

    2. I’m not clear about your opinion of this article. You seem to mildly object to the thoughts of the author. Maybe I’m misreading you a little.

      1. He has a tendency to be overly nuanced like that – you have to parse his thoughts with great care to get the true meaning.

        1. It’s OK. I’m not punching down.

    3. I am glad you read that….so I don’t have to.

      Ugh.

    4. Muslims already face discrimination in Europe as in America, and mocking them is not courageous or beneficial…There’s just nothing brave about secular white men mocking everybody else. You can’t satirize intolerance by being intolerant.

      The discrimination they face doesn’t even begin to approach the levels of discrimination that carriers of such a culture deserve. I love how Chapman shows his inner progressive racist. “Secular white men” shouldn’t be commended for criticizing others because they are WHITE men after all, as we all know they’re most evil ethnic group in the world. Great points as usual, Chapman.

      1. The discrimination they face doesn’t even begin to approach the levels of discrimination that carriers of such a culture deserve.

        As far as I can tell, most “Muslim youths” in Europe don’t give a f*ck about Islam; they are discriminated against simply because they look different, live in the wrong neighborhoods, speak funny, and have funny names. Despite their pretense of tolerance, European societies are extremely intolerant of anybody who is different.

        A small number of them turn to radical Islam out of anger, the way a small number of white Americans turn to fundamentalist Christianity or white supremacist groups.

  8. with support for such tactics declining in recent years…

    32,004 people were killed by terrorists last year.

    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2014.htm

  9. Sigmund Freud said the founder of civilization was the first person who hurled an insult instead of a rock.

    And an old cowboy said “cussin’ was invented as a compromise twixt fightin’ and runnin’ away”. I like the cowboy version better.

    1. Brokeback Mountain: called it!

      /Sigmund Freud

  10. The number actually committing such crimes is a tiny share of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims.

    1 percent of 1.6 billion is 16 million, which is the about twice the population of New York City. It is also slight less than the number of soliders who had served in the Wehrmacht from 1935 to 1945.

    A “tiny” share of a billion and a half is only tiny in cosmology or geologic time.

    1. Well only a tiny amount were commies in the USSR.

    2. A “tiny” share of a billion and a half is only tiny in cosmology or geologic time.

      Precisely. But we’d be lucky if it really were only 1%. In reality… Only 57% of Muslims worldwide disapprove of al-Qaeda. Only 51% disapprove of the Taliban. 13% support both groups and 1 in 4 refuse to say.
      http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/…..st-groups/
      http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/…..st-groups/

  11. “White American Christians are especially inclined to favor the use of torture against suspected terrorists.”

    Agree with them or not, you have made a stupid comparison. To recast it within the context of the beginning of the article.

    Is civilization is responding to an insult with another insult, or responding to a rock with an insult?

    The case of the suspected terrorist is more along the lines of responding to a rock with another rock rather than an insult with a rock. I am more inclined to believe that the case against an individual should be proven before the punishment is dealt out.

    I would point out however that we go to some lengths at times (not always) to capture folks alive that we could have, during military conflict, have killed. Some of the suspected terrorists (not all) are lucky to be alive given the circumstances.

    1. Were paper and scissors not even considered?

      1. Watch it, Swiss’ll be along shortly and narrow his gaze…

        1. He just needs new glasses so he won’t have to squint so much.

        2. *narrows gaze at the lot of you*

          *fumbles for reading glasses*

          1. Hey, I didn’t even bring up lizard and Spock – that would be silly.

  12. The modern groups that have yet to arrive at that wisdom will probably get there eventually.

    Citation needed.

  13. They are a tiny minority of the world’s Muslims, though. A 2013 Pew Research survey found, “Half or more of Muslims in most countries surveyed say that suicide bombing and other acts of violence that target civilians can never be justified in the name of Islam”

    Here we go with the No True Scotsman bit again. Polls actually show that there is an astonishingly high level of support for terrorism amongst Muslims. And if you want to try to argue that it’s really just a small minority, try harder to come up with a survey that doesn’t apparently indicate that a majority of Muslims think such acts are justified.

    1. Polls actually show that there is an astonishingly high level of support for terrorism amongst Muslims.

      People who think that this is due to some subtle theological flaw in Islam or a lack of “reason” are completely out of touch with reality. The anger of the Muslim masses isn’t due to a lack of proper teaching of Enlightenment values, it’s millions of teenagers who see no future for themselves. And for Muslims in Europe, the situation is even bleaker, given the massive and insurmountable prejudice and discrimination against anyone who is different in European societies.

  14. The number actually committing such crimes is a tiny share of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims

    The number of inquisitors was a tiny share of the world’s Catholics. The number of Crusaders committing atrocities was a tiny share of the world’s Christians.

    1. The First Crusade was ok in my book.

  15. There is a lot of smugness in this article and in the assertion that ‘reason is the only weapon’.

    The second you agree with the notion that you have some obligation/interest to change someone else with whom you disagree, then you head down a slippery slope. It doesn’t matter one whit whether you rationalize that’s its ok as long as you only use ‘reason’ to persuade them or that you draw some imaginary bright line between ‘peaceful reason’ and ‘not-so-peaceful reason’.

    Holmes was wrong. The basis of the 1st Amendment has NOTHING to do with the content of the particular belief/thought/expression that it covers. The basis of the 1st Amendment is humility and restraint (neither of which have anything to do with ‘reason’).

    Whether that in turn is based on the Enlightenment era idea that there are limits to what we know to be truth or the pre-Enlightenment (see Roger Williams) era idea that only God can be the arbiter/judge of someone’s thoughts/beliefs/expressions – well I’ll leave that for commenters to ponder.

    1. Whether that in turn is based on the Enlightenment era idea that there are limits to what we know to be truth or the pre-Enlightenment (see Roger Williams) era idea that only God can be the arbiter/judge of someone’s thoughts/beliefs/expressions – well I’ll leave that for commenters to ponder.

      I see a series of comments about “a Christian nation” vs. “a nation of Christians” in the near future.

    2. Chapman wouldn’t know “reason” if it walked up to him and bitch slapped him. All the man has ever done is talk and write. Reason involves logic, inference, knowledge, and critical thinking about the real world and its operations. What Chapman calls “reason” is simply the consensus and echo chamber of the privileged intellectual elite that he is a member of.

      When it comes to religion, Chapman subscribes to common progressive myths about religions, namely that as long as their followers are moderate, religions are all good and mostly interchangeable.

  16. Muslims who treat offensive depictions of the prophet Muhammad as grounds for execution are the most conspicuous examples of that tragic failure to evolve.

    Pew Research (2010): 84% of Egyptian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
    86% of Jordanian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
    30% of Indonesian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
    76% of Pakistanis support death the penalty for leaving Islam
    51% of Nigerian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
    http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/0…..hezbollah/

    1 in 5 Muslims in Austria believe that anyone wanting to leave Islam should be killed.
    http://muslimstatistics.wordpr…..democracy/

  17. Any support for terrorism is too much, and atrocities like the attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris implicate some interpretations of Islam. But we should avoid the smug assumption that we are blameless or that religion plays no role in our errors.

    61% of Egyptians approve of attacks on Americans
    32% of Indonesians approve of attacks on Americans
    41% of Pakistanis approve of attacks on Americans
    38% of Moroccans approve of attacks on Americans
    83% of Palestinians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (only 14% oppose)
    62% of Jordanians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (21% oppose)
    42% of Turks approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (45% oppose)
    A minority of Muslims disagreed entirely with terror attacks on Americans:
    (Egypt 34%; Indonesia 45%; Pakistan 33%)
    About half of those opposed to attacking Americans were sympathetic with al-Qaeda’s attitude toward the U.S.
    http://www.worldpublicopinion……09_rpt.pdf

    26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified.
    35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified (24% overall).
    42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall).
    22% of young Muslims in Germany believe suicide bombings are justified.(13% overall).
    29% of young Muslims in Spain believe suicide bombings are justified.(25% overall).
    http://pewresearch.org/assets/…..df#page=60

  18. They are a tiny minority of the world’s Muslims, though. A 2013 Pew Research survey found, “Half or more of Muslims in most countries surveyed say that suicide bombing and other acts of violence that target civilians can never be justified in the name of Islam”?with support for such tactics declining in recent years. The number actually committing such crimes is a tiny share of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims.

    40% to 50% of a population being supportive of those tiny minority who actually pull the trigger, is not a tiny minority of the world’s Muslims. It’s an alarmingly large proportion that tells you about the sickness that’s rampant in those societies.

    1. Those numbers are surprising. And disturbing.

      1. Almost makes God’s case for wanting the lot of them smote with the jawbone of an ass?

        1. …or the 120mm smooth bore barrel of an M1A2

  19. These are people who are proud of the fact that Mohammed spread Islam at the point of a sword. He didn’t hold a protest march and demand rights for Muslims. He killed to spread his beliefs.

    A million people marching around saying “Je Suis Charlie” and expresisng symnpathy and outrage is going to do exactly ZERO to change the minds of the Islamists or their Muslim sympathizers.

    1. Millions of people marching to demand and end to the open-door policy towards Muslim immigrants might just prevent a number of men, women and children being murdered by carriers of that cultural disease.

  20. my buddy’s sister-in-law makes $67 an hour on the internet . She has been without a job for 6 months but last month her paycheck was $12455 just working on the internet for a few hours. website link……….
    ????? http://www.work-reviews.com

  21. My best friend’s mother-in-law makes $85 /hour on the internet . She has been out of work for 5 months but last month her pay was $16453 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    Visit this website ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  22. “White American Christians are especially inclined to favor the use of torture against suspected terrorists”

    I assume this refers to an ABC poll, which actually concluded that”From moderate Democrats to white Evangelicals, nearly every demographic group believes torture can be justified” Not quite favoring torture is it? To say that torture might be justified under who knows what extreme conditions is hardly the same as favoring it. We condemn murder, but accept killing in self defense.

    The author can’t seem to make a point about Islam without equally running down Christianity. The two religions differ in so many ways that the analogy has no credibility.

    1. You’ve not read Chapman much have you?

  23. my neighbor’s step-aunt makes $80 an hour on the internet . She has been laid off for five months but last month her payment was $12901 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    website here……..
    ???????? http://www.paygazette.com

  24. my roomate’s half-sister makes $69 hourly on the laptop . She has been without a job for 10 months but last month her check was $15722 just working on the laptop for a few hours. why not look here………..
    ????? http://www.netjob70.com

  25. Eugene Debs was put in jail by Progressive fanatics.

  26. There are two types of cultures, cultures on a progress track and stagnant cultures. I’m sure sociologists have probably used different words to describe them. One can change gradually over time, but the other, short of a miracle or some radical event, will never change. It may not even recognize that other modes of living even exist and it certainly doesn’t care. Just think of native tribes that followed the same lifestyles for thousands of years. The question is whether or not these Islamic cultures of any small seeds of reform in them somewhere. The fact that they at least have some connection with the outside world leaves me with some hope.

  27. I’m not a Christian, and definitely not a Muslim, but I’ve tried to read about theological concepts of both, and notice that many people fail to recognize a key theological difference between the two (Chapman wouldn’t care anyways because he is a Progressive playing grievance politics).
    Continuing revelation.
    Christianity has, in the concept of the Holy Spirit, a vehicle for continuing revelation through the church, meaning that embarrassing teachings and scriptures can be recast as historical or allegorical, not to be followed literally (some Christians don’t do that and take a word-for-word literal interpretation, but even those don’t do the horrendous shit in the OT)
    In Islam Mohammad was the final revelation, and it contains no mechanism to evolve as a religion. It’s no coincidence that Moslems behave like medieval thugs, since their religion hasn’t changed since the death of Mohammad. To modernize Islam necessarily must become a completely different religion. Asa lama lakem motherfucker.

  28. “Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

  29. Ah, the article starts off well and then devolves back into the strained “white Christians are just as to blame as terrorists pushing extreme Islam.” Yawn, no hard hitting, thought provoking, controversial reporting here. Just repeated politically correct opinions.

  30. Religion isn’t a commodity; it’s a matter of growing up.

  31. It’s the usual Chapman bullshit. The man isn’t preaching reason and liberty, he is preaching statist imposition of order, the 21st century of the kind of rule by aristocrats and priests Europe suffered under for centuries. Why does this moron keep getting a platform on Reason?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.