Trump Rallies & Interviews Catch-All | Trump - “just stop talking about that”

[finesse]

This is the most puzzling thing. My belief is the either don't have well grounded views or they don't actually understand what trump stands for.

I think this was pertinent when I read it soon after 9/11 and still is. It's even more recognizable in the US now than then.



I've recommended this book a couple of times. It's still relevant.


Review: Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill by Jessica Stern
By Kevin Eckstrom
Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill
Jessica Stern
ecco/Harper Collins, $27.95, 368 pages

One of the most unsettling aspects of the September 11 terrorist hijackers was their ability to morph easily into American life. Suddenly, the Muslim extremists who wanted us dead were no longer just screaming caricatures waving AK-47s in the streets of Tehran; they were living among us. From anti-government separatists in Arkansas to militant Jerusalem Zionists to an executed killer of an abortion provider, Jessica Stern’s Terror in the Name of God describes a new breed of religious terrorists who defy conventional labels. Religious violence, she says, is anything but a Muslim phenomenon.

Her key question is what would make an otherwise God-fearing man or woman take up arms in a perverted expression of religious devotion. What is it that so motivates—and justifies—a war against the infidels? Stern finds her answers in her one-on-one visits with terrorists in Palestinian refugee camps, in the militarized valleys of Kashmir, and at a banquet of the “save-the-babies” movement against abortion. Religious terrorism, at its heart, is an ends-justify-the-means attempt to purify a polluted culture of any number of dangerous influences. “Holy war intensifies the boundaries between Us and Them,” Stern writes, and lays out in strict black and white a world that is increasingly gray. While some—like Paul Hill, who was executed last year for the 1994 murder of an abortion doctor—sentence only the truly “guilty” to death, others, like Osama bin Laden, target entire civilizations. Innocents (even Muslims) caught in the crossfire are treated as “collateral damage.”

Terrorist leaders exploit the grievances of poverty, dispossessed land, historical wrongs, and perceived cultural ills to recruit foot soldiers in their holy wars, Stern writes. Often the recruits are emasculated, frequently humiliated, drifters whose search for purpose and mission finds hope in the promises of eternal rewards. “People join religious terrorist groups partly to transform themselves and to simplify life,” writes Stern, of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, and formerly of the National Security Council and the Council on Foreign Relations. “They start out feeling humiliated, enraged that they are viewed by some Other as second class. They take on new identities as martyrs on behalf of a purported spiritual cause. The spiritually perplexed learn to focus on action….Uncertainty and ambivalence, always painful to experience, are banished.”

 

[Kraftyheel89]

Trump was also all fired up about McDonalds again yesterday. He said Kamala never worked there, she made it all up, there's no proof and she never listed it anywhere.

He said maybe he will go work at McDonalds, standing over the fries station. Said he would love it.

Kamala really pissed him off talking about his favorite restaurant and once being employed there.

 

[hedge]

Her key question is what would make an otherwise God-fearing man or woman take up arms in a perverted expression of religious devotion. What is it that so motivates—and justifies—a war against the infidels?

Let someone name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever. And here is my second challenge. Can anyone think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith? -Christopher Hitchens

Certainly the example in the portion of finesse's post that I quoted is one answer to Hichens' second challenge. There are plenty more...

 

[SnoopRob]

Let someone name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever. And here is my second challenge. Can anyone think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith? -Christopher Hitchens

Certainly the example in the portion of finesse's post that I quoted is one answer to Hichens' second challenge. There are plenty more...

Hitchens challenge there is a "discount the good, emphasize the bad" take on religion where anything good that is done on behalf of religion is not attributed to religious belief but anything bad that is done is attributed solely or predominantly to religious belief. It's a standard designed to make religious belief a negative force.

Not that this is in any way possible to determine, but the better standard would be the "but for" standard...how much good is done by religious folks that would not be done "but for" their religious belief and how much bad is done that would not be done "but for" their religious belief.

That would be the method to determine where religion makes an actual impact.

 

[finesse]

Hitchens challenge there is a "discount the good, emphasize the bad" take on religion where anything good that is done on behalf of religion is not attributed to religious belief but anything bad that is done is attributed solely or predominantly to religious belief. It's a standard designed to make religious belief a negative force.

Not that this is in any way possible to determine, but the better standard would be the "but for" standard...how much good is done by religious folks that would not be done "but for" their religious belief and how much bad is done that would not be done "but for" their religious belief.

That would be the method to determine where religion makes an actual impact.

The difficult part is defining what the impact is. In my opinion, it extends beyond the religious and incorporates al forms of spirituality. A god or gods doesn't have to be the unseen driver. Neither your faith, philosophy nor ethos should allow you to force behavior consonant to your beliefs on others if it does you no physical harm. To me, that means virtually all damage from victimless crimes or restrictions on permissible treatments advised by physicians and the like are damage that, to me, is attributable to the spiritual. So are many of the laws used to justify discrimination.

I agree that religion has done a lot of good. Individuals have endured much for the faith. On the whole, though, religion has done quite well out of doing good.

 

[Centerpiece]

Organized religion gives God a bad name. All organized religions, not just Christianity… and All Gods, not just Sky daddy - part of the Trinity.

As soon as “the believers” of any stripe start getting organized and want to trumpet “theirs” while demonizing “yours” we’ve got problems.

And this is where the carpenter from Nazareth who hung out with fisher-folk and prostitutes can make some sense. And I’m discounting the sky daddies and the fairy tales, I’m just talking about the carpenter’s 2 main points.

1) Go ahead and “love” your “God”. Put faith in it/him/her - whatever that entails.

2) Secondly, and most importantly, is the bit about “love your neighbor” which is of course the most difficult part for us dumbass human beings.

If all of humanity were free to choose and “love” their brand of “God” or higher power, or whatever, and wasn’t persecuted for it - AND AS LONG AS THEY would “MIND THEIR OWN DAMN BUSINESS” and actually “love their neighbors”, life on this pea-sized planet would go along swimmingly.

But obviously, we dumbass humans are not equipped to do something so simple.

I sing in an Episcopal Church choir. I think Texas State Rep James Talarico is spot on. I don’t have a Bible in one hand and a sword in the other. I have a guitar in one hand and a gin tonic in the other.

 

[hedge]

Hitchens challenge there is a "discount the good, emphasize the bad" take on religion where anything good that is done on behalf of religion is not attributed to religious belief but anything bad that is done is attributed solely or predominantly to religious belief. It's a standard designed to make religious belief a negative force.

I don't think that's quite right. I don't think it's anything bad done is attributed solely or predominately to religion, just that there are some bad things that are done that can only be attributed to religion. Conversely, any of the good things done that are attributed solely to religion can be (and have always been and always will be) done by non-religious people. I think what he's saying basically boils down to: most people do good things regardless of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) but there are some bad things that hardly anybody would do except for their belief that their religion authorizes and even demands it, e.g., killing the "infidels." Certainly people would do bad things without religion, but certain things are manifestly ordained by religion and indeed are characterized as righteous acts for which the perpetrator will receive an eternal reward...

 

[nycfan]

Good Lord





This is in response to briefings about Iran wanting him assassinated …

 

[nycfan]

 

[superrific]

Let someone name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever.

This is sophistry, like so much of what I've seen from Hitchens. It's perfectly circular, because he's defining "ethics" in a secular way consistent with non-belief.

For instance, the statement that "nobody should be allowed to flaunt their homosexuality in public" is seen by believers as an ethical statement. They believe it is bad for sinful behavior to be celebrated in public. Hitchens, presumably, would deny that statement is ethical, which is just begging the question. Obviously if you judge moral code A by the standards of moral code B, A will include some moral claims that B will think wrong. B will never contain such moral claims, since we're judging morality according to B.

I really don't respect Hitchens and I've never really understood why he gets such veneration. I think it's because he did lots of TV, and it's easy to look like a genius when you're debating Sean Hannity or whoever.

 

[superrific]

I'm really curious what a "beyond military scope" gun looks like. Relatedly, why doesn't the military have such weapons?

 

[uncgriff]

I'm really curious what a "beyond military scope" gun looks like. Relatedly, why doesn't the military have such weapons?

 

[finesse]

I'm really curious what a "beyond military scope" gun looks like. Relatedly, why doesn't the military have such weapons?

Because the two main goals are to be simple to maintain and to reliably fire. There have always been weapons better than the military ones for accuracy, range, killing power, etc. They are too complicated to maintain in the field, especially for the average soldier, too expensive and manufactured to such close tolerances that they jam easier.

That's irrelevant because he really is spouting gibberish and they don't care what he says.

 

[nycfan]

 

[He's Not Here]

Can I get an Amen

 

[superrific]

Because the two main goals are to be simple to maintain and to reliably fire. There have always been weapons better than the military ones for accuracy, range, killing power, etc. They are too complicated to maintain in the field, especially for the average soldier, too expensive and manufactured to such close tolerances that they jam easier.

That's irrelevant because he really is spouting gibberish and they don't care what he says.

Does the military not have those powerful weapons at all? Special forces don't have those advanced weapons? Sure, you don't want the GIs to carry around $2000 guns that are complicated, but GIs aren't the entirety of the military.

 

[grimes70]

I sing in an Episcopal Church choir. I think Texas State Rep James Talarico is spot on. I don’t have a Bible in one hand and a sword in the other. I have a guitar in one hand and a gin tonic in the other.

Evidence for why they were referred to in my youth and still to this day as "Whiskeypalians".

 

[finesse]

Does the military not have those powerful weapons at all? Special forces don't have those advanced weapons? Sure, you don't want the GIs to carry around $2000 guns that are complicated, but GIs aren't the entirety of the military.

Don't keep up like I used to but yes and no. They have refined guns that are easier to conceal, have night vision, fire more reliably and such. Snipers have very sophisticated weapons but they have generally ended up in the wrong place if they fire three times and generally only once. Dedicated hunting rifles are different weapons. Weight is not an issue so they are heavier which innately aids accuracy. You don't generally have jamming issues so the tolerances are tighter. The powder load can be heavier since powder fouling is a non issue. The ammo is different (although this same ammo will work in military weapons) in that it is made to expand creating a much worse wound. And on and on. It's the difference between a tack hammer and a framing hammer. They are both hammers, both well designed for the job, but despite being in the same class, it's an entirely different job.

 

[hedge]

I really don't respect Hitchens and I've never really understood why he gets such veneration. I think it's because he did lots of TV, and it's easy to look like a genius when you're debating Sean Hannity or whoever.

I've read most of his books and a great many of his articles and longer essays. Most of his TV appearances were longform discussions (and therefor not seen by many people at all), e.g., with Brian Lamb on CSPAN, or at book fairs and the like, covering a wide range of topics. In contrast, I think he was on Hannity twice, so maybe a grand total of 8 minutes speaking time. He seems to have been held in fairly high regard by a good number of folks that I hold in high regard (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Salman Rushdie, Matin Amis - it's a long list). You may not respect him, but if you're basing it on the two times he was on Hannity, there's plenty of his material out there that would give a fuller picture.

I know many on the left felt betrayed and never forgave him for his stance on Iraq, but even that was approached from a leftist position, i.e., the US had played a large role in setting up Saddam Hussein and keeping him in power, so we owed it to the Iraqis to help get rid of him - some may not (and didn't) buy that as a justification, but I think Hitchens was sincere in his motivations in this regard; certainly he wasn't coming from some neocon empire building position (or whatever the neocon position was) or anything of the sort. He probably regarded them more in an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of way. And he was a steadfast champion of the Kurds.

I'm sure some (many?) people found him cocksure, pompous and maybe even aggressive (George Galloway described him as a drink-sodden former Trotskyite popinjay) , and maybe he came across that way in the many debates he partook in (when I say debates, I don't mean a 10 minute clip on Hannity, I mean real debates with real opposition (see: Galloway, above) where everyone was given equal time), but I certainly regard him as one of the top handful of public intellectuals in my lifetime. He was a pretty insightful literary critic too...

 

[superrific]

I've read most of his books and a great many of his articles. Most of his TV appearances were longform discussions, e.g., with Brian Lamb on CSPAN, or at book fairs and the like. In contrast, I think he was on Hannity twice, so maybe a grand total of 8 minutes speaking time. He seems to have been held in fairly high regard by a good number of folks that I hold in high regard (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Salman Rushdie, Matin Amis - it's a long list). You may not respect him, but if you're basing it on the two times he was on Hannity, there's plenty of his material out there that would give a fuller picture.

I know many on the left felt betrayed and never forgave him for his stance on Iraq, but even that was approached from a leftist position, i.e., the US had played a large role in setting up Saddam Hussein and keeping him in power, so we owed it to the Iraqis to help get rid of him - some may not (and didn't) buy that as a justification, but I think Hitchens was sincere in his motivations in this regard; certainly he was coming from an empire building position. And he was a steadfast champion of the Kurds.

I'm sure some (many?) people found him cocksure, preening and maybe even aggressive, and maybe he came across that way in the many debates he partook in (when I say debates, I don't mean a 10 minute clip on Hannity, I mean real debates with real opposition where everyone was given equal time), but I certainly regard him as one of the top handful of public intellectuals in my lifetime. He was a pretty insightful literary critic too...

I'm not judging him based on his appearance on Hannity. I'm judging him based on his fallacies, like the one you cited. And also his nonsense about Gandhi, sadly shared with a generation of British socialists who couldn't get over the fact that the small, religious man in homespun garments accomplished far, far more than any of their heroes ever did.