[Ghost of V]

Yes, because if what you said is applied then the Bible and other such books would be effectively banned due to the various heinous things they promote. People would cry and say you're trampling their freedom of speech and religion. It would be impossible to determine how one reads and interprets the Bible, so determining if they "promote violence etc" would be impossible.

[Rushy]

Yes, because if what you said is applied then the Bible and other such books would be effectively banned due to the various heinous things they promote. People would cry and say you're trampling their freedom of speech and religion. It would be impossible to determine how one reads and interprets the Bible, so determining if they "promote violence etc" would be impossible.

Not banned in their entirety, I think a lot of their parts should be banned, though. Things like stoning people, honor killings, enforced circumcision, etc. should be removed. Since the bible/quran/etc is not advertised as fiction, you should not be allowed to advocate murder by using it and if you do it should be a hate crime.

Also it is very possible to determine the exact meaning of various verses, take this one for example:

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.

Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.

It's really hard to do some sort of mental gymnastics to say that isn't a hate crime. It literally says "if someone does this murder them." That's no bueno.

[Ghost of V]

I agree with your points, but ultimately the bible/quran/etc is fiction even though the advocates don't advertise them as such. This isn't so much a problem with the content of the books, but the mindset of the individual's reading these works of fiction.

And no one is allowed to advocate murder anyways. That's usually frowned upon and investigated, at least in good ol' US of A. Sadly not every country across our great disc is the USA, so some places are more lenient and/or tolerant of hate speech brought about by religious text. This is also where we get into things like Christians saying "oh that part is outdated and no longer applies lol" or "no you're interpreting it incorrectly".

All hate crimes, whether religiously motivated or not, should have appropriate punishments. However, I don't think religion is going away anytime soon if ever due to that little bit about freedom of religion and freedom of speech, which sometimes can be more detrimental than helpful, especially in the cause of Islam. But I'm not going to pretend that Islam is the biggest offender, because Christianity, Judaism, and others were just as violent at some point in their histories.


Also, banning certain parts of religious texts is not going to change anything. People will still cling to the old ways.

The problem with religion is that it was conceived to begin with, now it's going to be very difficult to do away with.

[Rushy]

I agree with your points, but ultimately the bible/quran/etc is fiction even though the advocates don't advertise them as such. This isn't so much a problem with the content of the books, but the mindset of the individual's reading these works of fiction.

The majority of the world thinks that at least one of those books isn't fiction.

And no one is allowed to advocate murder anyways. That's usually frowned upon and investigated, at least in good ol' US of A. Sadly not every country across our great disc is the USA, so some places are more lenient and/or tolerant of hate speech brought about by religious text. This is also where we get into things like Christians saying "oh that part is outdated and no longer applies lol" or "no you're interpreting it incorrectly".

And yet the books literally advocate murder, and as I said before, most of the world doesn't think they're fiction.

All hate crimes, whether religiously motivated or not, should have appropriate punishments. However, I don't think religion is going away anytime soon if ever due to that little bit about freedom of religion and freedom of speech, which sometimes can be more detrimental than helpful, especially in the cause of Islam. But I'm not going to pretend that Islam is the biggest offender, because Christianity, Judaism, and others were just as violent at some point in their histories.

Religious hate crimes get special treatment; they get to hand out murder books without repercussion, then we all act surprised when religious extremists murder people. Cause meet effect.

[Ghost of V]

Let's take a look at The Catcher in the Rye.

Mark David Chapman identified with this book as if it were a religious text, so much so that he wanted to change his name to Holden Caulfield. He is on record stating that this book was the main motivation behind his killing of John Lennon. Another killer, Robert John Bardo, also identified with this book and cited it as his motivation to kill Rebecca Schaeffer.

Should The Cather in the Rye be banned? Ultimately, the Bible and anything like it is fiction, but there are crazies out there that will take everything in it literally and follow it to the letter... there are crazies out there that also murder people because of The Cather in the Rye and other fictitious books, of course the number of those crazies is significantly smaller in the latter's case, but it has still happened and people are dead because of it.

Now, let's say that these people were mentally disturbed and killed because of a deep rooted psychological problem...  then the same exact thing can be said of religious fanatics. Religion is arguably a mental illness, and murdering for religious reasons can be associated with that easily. That's why we have to take every murder, hate crime, stoning, etc on a case by case basis and punish the individual instead of the catalyst.

[Rushy]

Let's take a look at The Catcher in the Rye.

Mark David Chapman identified with this book as if it were a religious text, so much so that he wanted to change his name to Holden Caulfield. He is on record stating that this book was the main motivation behind his killing of John Lennon. Another killer, Robert John Bardo, also identified with this book and cited it as his motivation to kill Rebecca Schaeffer.

Should The Cather in the Rye be banned? Ultimately, the Bible and anything like it is fiction, but there are crazies out there that will take everything in it literally and follow it to the letter... there are crazies out there that also murder people because of The Cather in the Rye and other fictitious books, of course the number of those crazies is significantly smaller in the latter's case, but it has still happened and people are dead because of it.

Now, let's say that these people were mentally disturbed and killed because of a deep rooted psychological problem...  then the same exact thing can be said of religious fanatics. Religion is arguably a mental illness, and murdering for religious reasons can be associated with that easily. That's why we have to take every murder, hate crime, stoning, etc on a case by case basis and punish the individual instead of the catalyst.

Are there people at there airport handing out flyers about how "The Cather [sic] in the Rye" is a religious text and it is the word of god? Do bookstores sell it in the religious section? Sorry, but this has to be trolling. If you have a moral problem with what I believe, that's fine, but don't insult yourself by professing this bollocks of a rebuttal.

[Ghost of V]

Are there people at there airport handing out flyers about how "The Cather [sic] in the Rye" is a religious text and it is the word of god? Do bookstores sell it in the religious section? Sorry, but this has to be trolling. If you have a moral problem with what I believe, that's fine, but don't insult yourself by professing this bollocks of a rebuttal.

No, but they could... and many groups that hand out religious flyers do not go on to murder people or commit hate crimes, so I don't understand the connection you're trying to make. You can't lump those people together with extremists who murder people just because of some murderous cartoon rampage fueled by murder books. You can't control what people do, and if you start banning specific sentences from religious texts then you're on a very slippery slope which leads to book burning and censorship and ultimately state-controlled trial without jury execution parties.

[Vindictus]

Yes. They didn't deserve martyrdom, even though they received it by being turned into swiss cheese. I'd happily pay to see them exist, and watch as Hebdo not only survives but thrives.

I, on the other hand, don't care what they did/didn't want. What they think about themselves is meaningless. This kind of thinking is why movie killings are always drawn out and annoying. "I want to make sure this guy knows I'm about to kill him and for what reasons!" Shit don't matter, yo, guys gonna be dead in the end anyway.

I would also not want them to have a chance of spreading sedition in prison.  They were put down, just like any dangerous animal should be.

They would be much less dangerous than the many free radicals that exist, so it doesn't matter.

[Particle Person]

Oxygen is the most dangerous free radical.

[Saddam Hussein]

Oxygen is the most dangerous free radical.

Unlike argon, it is not a noble gas.

[Ghost of V]

Oxygen is the most dangerous free radical.

Unlike argon, it is not a noble gas.

4/10 felt forced

[Rama Set]

Yes. They didn't deserve martyrdom, even though they received it by being turned into swiss cheese. I'd happily pay to see them exist, and watch as Hebdo not only survives but thrives.

I, on the other hand, don't care what they did/didn't want. What they think about themselves is meaningless. This kind of thinking is why movie killings are always drawn out and annoying. "I want to make sure this guy knows I'm about to kill him and for what reasons!" Shit don't matter, yo, guys gonna be dead in the end anyway.

I would also not want them to have a chance of spreading sedition in prison.  They were put down, just like any dangerous animal should be.

They would be much less dangerous than the many free radicals that exist, so it doesn't matter.

It matters even less when they are dead.

[Thork]

Yes. They didn't deserve martyrdom, even though they received it by being turned into swiss cheese. I'd happily pay to see them exist, and watch as Hebdo not only survives but thrives.

I, on the other hand, don't care what they did/didn't want. What they think about themselves is meaningless. This kind of thinking is why movie killings are always drawn out and annoying. "I want to make sure this guy knows I'm about to kill him and for what reasons!" Shit don't matter, yo, guys gonna be dead in the end anyway.

I would also not want them to have a chance of spreading sedition in prison.  They were put down, just like any dangerous animal should be.

They would be much less dangerous than the many free radicals that exist, so it doesn't matter.

It matters even less when they are dead.

Do you know what a martyr is?

[Rama Set]

Yes. They didn't deserve martyrdom, even though they received it by being turned into swiss cheese. I'd happily pay to see them exist, and watch as Hebdo not only survives but thrives.

I, on the other hand, don't care what they did/didn't want. What they think about themselves is meaningless. This kind of thinking is why movie killings are always drawn out and annoying. "I want to make sure this guy knows I'm about to kill him and for what reasons!" Shit don't matter, yo, guys gonna be dead in the end anyway.

I would also not want them to have a chance of spreading sedition in prison.  They were put down, just like any dangerous animal should be.

They would be much less dangerous than the many free radicals that exist, so it doesn't matter.

It matters even less when they are dead.

Do you know what a martyr is?

Do you know what sedition is?  I will give you a hint. You must be alive to engage in it.

[Rushy]

Why do so many people bother with spiting them? You don't have to make sure they know they've lost, they're dead. Are you worried they really did get 72 virgins? I'm not. Besides, the fuck kind of reward is that, anyway? 72 starfishes is not a fucking reward.

[Rama Set]

Why do so many people bother with spiting them? You don't have to make sure they know they've lost, they're dead. Are you worried they really did get 72 virgins? I'm not. Besides, the fuck kind of reward is that, anyway? 72 starfishes is not a fucking reward.

Lol. I think all the marches is to show some undefined outgroup that they are not afraid. Nothing tells me you are in need of security more than an impulse to gather in a large group.

[Thork]

1,000,000 people marched against terrorism that hurt a handful of people. Financial terrorism that effects everyone has no such condemnation. People are dumb.

[Rushy]

1,000,000 people marched against terrorism that hurt a handful of people. Financial terrorism that effects everyone has no such condemnation. People are dumb.

Yes, murdering people has a stronger reaction than foreclosing their house. Can't explain that!

[Thork]

1,000,000 people marched against terrorism that hurt a handful of people. Financial terrorism that effects everyone has no such condemnation. People are dumb.

Yes, murdering people has a stronger reaction than foreclosing their house. Can't explain that!

Murdering half a dozen people has a stronger reaction than foreclosing on the homes of hundreds of thousands. I think perspective is being asked to shut up again.

[Lord Dave]

1,000,000 people marched against terrorism that hurt a handful of people. Financial terrorism that effects everyone has no such condemnation. People are dumb.

Yes, murdering people has a stronger reaction than foreclosing their house. Can't explain that!

Murdering half a dozen people has a stronger reaction than foreclosing on the homes of hundreds of thousands. I think perspective is being asked to shut up again.

Nah.  It's totally in perspective.  As in the "I'm not being foreclosed so why should I care" perspective.  You know, first person.