Swazi king endorses mass circumcision in bid to fight HIV

Yeah. That'll work.

Perhaps circumcision 'in depth'.

No no I meant anti-androgens in the food. Or something.

I must admit, I had not heard of that particular therapy.

And for once, I don't want to see the supporting evidence.

Mswati was entertained by bare-breasted teenage girls, troops of warrior regiments and a military brass band.

His medical knowledge may be a bit lacking, but you have to admit - there's a man who knows how to throw a press conference!

Swazi men are more likely to have HIV if they've been circumcised:
19.5% of intact Swazi men have HIV
21.8% of circumcised Swazi men have HIV

(figures from http://www.measuredhs.com)

Other countries where circumcised men are *more* likely to have HIV are Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, and Rwanda. That's at least six African countries where men are more likely to have HIV if they've been circumcised, and yet they're promoting circumcision to prevent HIV.

The South African National Communication Survey on HIV/AIDS, 2009 found that 15% of adults across age groups "believe that circumcised men do not need to use condoms".

The one randomized controlled trial into male-to-female transmission showed a 54% higher rate in the group where the men had been circumcised btw.

What will it take to stop this madness?

The evidence for that Circumcising men to will prevent or reduce AIDS is at best is unproven and most likely bunk. If the King would convince his people to live holy lives, have sex just within marriage, then AIDS would be wiped out in just a few years.

Oh wait, he is very progressive and has 13 wives the youngest 17 years old, so much for moral leadership. However just wait till the anti-circumcision groups in San francisco hear about this. Oh wait, they are just anti jewish.

Freethinking, AIDS is more prominent in the christian areas of Africa. Hope that helps!

"The most common religion in Swaziland is Christianity which totals 82.70% of the total population" -- Wikipedia

That's a higher percentage than in the US, isn't it?

Edit: I checked. It is.

"In a 2007 survey, 78.4% of [American] adults identified themselves as Christian." -- Wikipedia

Yea FH, christians teach men should have 13 wives.

Lets do a study to see if people who say they are bible believing christian and who actually live the biblical christian life have a lower or higher chance of getting AIDS. My Hypothesis would be, Christians who live the Christian life (either circumcised or un-circumcised) would have a significantly lower chance of having AIDS than those who live the progressive ideal of having sex with whomever they want whenever they want, as long as they are circumcised and/or use a condom.

FH want to make a bet which group would have lower AIDS rate? Didn't think so. To prevent AIDS We should be teaching people, even those who are not Christian, to live the biblical christian life.

Yea FH, christians teach men should have 13 wives.

Mormonism is a christian sect. Admittedly, I can't find any reliable data on Mswatti III's religion, but odds are he is a self identified christian.

Lets do a study to see if people who say they are bible believing christian and who actually live the biblical christian life

How do you determine who leads a "biblical christian life" when no two christian sects agree entirely on what the bible says? Passages on shellfish are juxtaposed next to passages on homosexuality. I'm assuming you believe an active homosexual cannot be a christian. Can an active shellfish eater be considered christian?

No true christian. http://en.wikiped...Scotsman

Christians who live the Christian life... would have a significantly lower chance of having AIDS than those who... use a condom.

This is demonstrably false. Condom use is inversely proportional to AIDS rates. Christianity isn't.

Source: reality.

Also, if sinning makes one not a christian, can we go ahead and agree that the world contains significantly less than 2 billion christians and the US is significantly less than 78.4% christian?

Also, do you not sin or do you only consider yourself a christian since the last time you sinned? Do you expect to sin again? Does that mean you aren't a christian now?

The figures ml66uk cites are correct, HIV prevalence is slightly higher among circumcised men than uncircumcised. It would be better to establish why this is the case before spending so much money on a strategy that will have such a small impact on HIV transmission and might even increase transmission.

FH you are asking a lot of theological questions which proves the point. Progressives know next to nothing about christianity. Christians do disagree on a lot, but no christian disagrees on the fundamentals.

If you honestly want answers PM me and I will go through them point by point.
Christian living found in the bible would include but is not limited to: Titus 2 1-15, 2 Timothy 2 22, 1 Timothy 3 1-12, 1 Timothy 1 8-11

And a warning of what is happening today 2 Timothy 3 1-9

The FACT is, if people live the moral way Christian should, AIDS would not exist. It would matter not if the Christians were circumcised or not. Only a complete fool would disagree with that.

If you honestly want answers PM me and I will go through them point by point.

Why not answer my questions in the light of day? They've already been asked. It's up to you to answer them.

The FACT is, if people live the moral way Christian should, AIDS would not exist. It would matter not if the Christians were circumcised or not. Only a complete fool would disagree with that.

The PROBLEM is christians don't generally act Christian. No true christian. http://en.wikiped...Scotsman

So.

If sinning makes you not a christian, do you not sin or do you only consider yourself a christian since the last time you sinned? If you expect to sin in the future, how can you consider yourself a christian?

Christians do disagree on a lot, but no christian disagrees on the fundamentals.

Also, can I please get a list of these fundamentals so your statement actually becomes falsifiable?

FrankHerbert said some things that either confused me, the issue, or both... In part: "I'm assuming you believe an active homosexual cannot be a christian." I realize that this wasn't directed at me, but I'll throw in with: I know a few, and am related to one. Some at peace with it, some not.

"Also, if sinning makes one not a christian,..." Anyone who claims this has got their theology and/or doctrine screwed up. Or misunderstands a basic tenant of Christianity.

"The PROBLEM is christians don't generally act Christian."
Amen brother. True statement that. Woooo - no disagreement there!

FT said 'Christians who live the Christian life (snip) would have a significantly lower chance of having AIDS...', which is probably a true statement (I lack the data) even if he'd started with "People" rather than "Christians", and differentiated it from "Catholic" (key point - the whole condom issue, you know...) I don't agree with the "AIDS wouldn't exist" angle, but likely fewer cases...

Taking it to its extreme, and for a moment leaving religion out of it, you've got to admit that on balance "monastically boring prudes" are going to have - as a population - fewer cases of STDs than a similarly sized population of libertines (I said liberTINES, not liberALS).

Which is all well and fine, and a generally (physically) healthier way to go, but on the downside requires one to be, well, a monastically boring prude. Fortunately, I illustrate with extremes.

Speaking of extremes, I still can't get over what a rocking press conference that must have been!

FH - yes you can still sin and be a christian, and any christian that says they don't sin is lying. The difference is christians knows the cost of sin. You obviously didn't read the verses.

A good sight for answers about christianity is below

http://www.equip....sentials

Can a practicing homosexual be a christian? Can a practicing adulterer be a christian? Can someone who has sex outside of marriage be a christian? That is for God to decide. All I can say is that their acts are destructive and sinful, and these people should not be leaders in the church. If they say it is ok to do as they do, they shouldn't even be members, as they are clearly going against basic christian teachings.

Shelgeyr, you have been deceived by the world. The world says people who live by christian principles are boring. The truth is, it's not.

Christians want people to live their lives to the fullest. Progressives want to give people excuses not to live their lives to the fullest.

@freethinking said:

Shelgeyr, you have been deceived by the world. The world says people who live by christian principles are boring.

I have not been deceived by the world, at least not on this matter... Please read what I said again. I didn't say "Christians are boring". I said - and was quite clear that I was intentionally making an extreme example, that "'monastically boring prudes' are going to have - as a population - fewer cases of STDs..." You would be mistaken if you assumed I was labeling all Christians as "monastically boring prudes".

If you're going to rebuke me, even gently, then do it properly. Otherwise - and this is just my opinion, not gospel - you run the risk of tripping up your own witness.

It seems to be very far fetched - especially in the light of the statistics presented in several of the comments above - to suggest using circumsision to prevent AIDs. Why not simply promote condom use?

Somehow it does not surprise me that the USA is sponsoring this folly. After all, the US always preferred idiotic campaigns such as "just say no" instead of handing out preventives to their own teenagers.

Christians want people to live their lives to the fullest.

FT even you must realize that you are hopelessly generalizing? For instance the people who follow this particular sect must lead very active and exciting lives indeed:
http://en.wikiped...nce_Army

-While this group must feel very restricted in their opportunities for pleasant happiness:
http://www.guardi...sh-cairo

-But martyrs do enjoy a certain satisfaction in suffering as jesus did I suppose. As do the especially devoted who subject themselves to this sort of rapture:
http://en.wikiped...i/Cilice

-Then there are those groups which we might assume are leading with less freedom than they want because of pesky earthly laws:
http://en.wikiped...y_Saints

-Are they happy? Not the ones who are in jail. But they ARE suffering for jesus too, arent they? Happiness is somewhat relative.

The emotional freedom which can come from thorough self-deception can be very liberating indeed. So much easier to walk into a church full of people willing to embrace you and invite you to church suppers as long as you praise their sky demon the way they tell you to. So...compelling. If only...

Remember; 'No other gods before Me.' No salvation without works. This means that you are gently encouraged to spread the good word (as you do here) which must include denouncing other beliefs or lack thereof (which you also do here).

Some take this ministry more seriously than others. Outsiders might view this activity as the basest sort of bigotry. Copts in egypt would. Those hunted by the Lords Resistance Army certainly would. Those young women forced into marriages with their uncles in the FLDS (or in afghanistan or india for that matter) might.
cont

You CANNOT separate this activity from your religion. Your benign activities and beliefs aid and abet all the suffering and misery caused by religionist excesses around the world.

Repent. Denounce the system which gives so many others the freedom to oppress and abuse, and which annoys the hell out of people here.

Can a practicing homosexual be a christian? Can a practicing adulterer be a christian? Can someone who has sex outside of marriage be a christian? That is for God to decide.

Actually I thought it was up to each person via his free will to become christian by excepting Jesus into his heart but ignoring that...

Why do feel you can decide for Him? Every time I bring up that AIDS is more prominent in christian areas of Africa, I am told "they are not real christians or else they wouldn't have AIDS, duh." (not an actual quote)

This is how these conversations usually go:

1: A christian comes in trying to make some wide moral swipe at an entire culture/continent/race/etc.

2: Turns out that culture is actually predominantly christian.

3: Said christian denies the christianity of those in question due to a certain sin/condition.

4: Said christian eventually admits to his own sins without giving up his christianity, yet still denies the christianity of those he sees as others.

you run the risk of tripping up your own witness.

Umm, I think that's kinda par for the course here. Has anyone been successfully converted by the charlatans that frequent this site?

Heres an interesting list of xians:
http://www.ondoct...hame.htm

-Not to mention a few hundred priests with objectionable tastes-

Umm, I think that's kinda par for the course here. Has anyone been successfully converted by the charlatans that frequent this site?

Or how many have been discouraged by the exposure of religionist nonsense? I like to think dozens.

I think that we are far more successful at making xians look bad here than they are at making us look bad. In this they do the readership a valuable service. People can learn science at physorg and also take some valuable antireligious ammo with them.

Or how many have been discouraged by the exposure of xian nonsense? I like to think dozens.

At least.

Also, I didn't know Bob Jones of all people couldn't keep his dick in his pants. Lol.

"In 1991 Kansas City prophet BOB JONES tapes were removed from the Vineyard Ministries International product catalog after he admitted to a moral failure (Lee Grady, Wimber Plots New Course for Vineyard, Charisma, Feb. 1993, p. 64). Jones was using his alleged spiritual authority and prophetic anointing to induce women to disrobe."

-which is only encouraging them to live their lives (and his) to the fullest?

This is interesting:

"Bob Jones University v. United States (1983)

"On January 19, 1976, the Internal Revenue Service notified the university that its tax exemption had been revoked retroactively to December 1, 1970. The school appealed the IRS decision all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the University met all other criteria for tax-exempt status and that the school's racial discrimination was based on sincerely held religious beliefs, that "God intended segregation of the races and that the Scriptures forbid interracial marriage."

"The university refused to reverse its interracial dating policy and (with difficulty) paid a million dollars in back taxes. Also, in the year following the Court decision, contributions to the university declined by 13 percent."

-Like I said FT - bigotry is the fundamental tenet of any religion. Tribalism; internal altruism in conjunction with external animosity.

Repent your sins. Renounce the god which demands them.

Looks like Mr. Jones used the power of christ to compel people (to disrobe).

TheGhostOtto, I think you are making the religious out be somewhat worse than what they really are. But, I agree that when judging a culture or religion, one must weigh in both the good and the bad. Saying that all the bad bits are due to "not-really-christian-christians" is flawed reasoning.

Muslim Brotherhood

"...the Quran and Sunnah constitute a perfect way of life and social and political organization that God has set out for man. Islamic governments must be based on this system and eventually unified in a Caliphate. The Muslim Brotherhood's goal, as stated by Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna was to reclaim Islam's manifest destiny, an empire, stretching from Spain to Indonesia."

-And you thought Comintern was evil.

Al Quiada

"...is a global militant Sunni Islamist group founded by Osama bin Laden sometime between August 1988 and late 1989. It operates as a network comprising both a multinational, stateless army and a radical Sunni Muslim movement calling for global Jihad."

Do nothing. They come for you.

http://www.youtub...3vhTO248

-All religions contain the potential for evil. History has shown us this. One legitimizes the other. 'For the world to live, religion must die.' -bill maher
http://www.youtub...TVUulGwc

Hundreds of thousands of US men who were circumcised at birth have died of AIDS.

Are humans inherently good or inherently evil?
Is religion the cause of evil? If so, then why have athiests killed more people than non athiests?
Logic shows living the christian life is better for the individual. Sleeping around and having sex with whomever, whenever significantly increases the odds of STDs many of which are incurable, some of which are deadly, others cause cancer. Getting stonned destroys brain and liver function. So the ideal progressive life destroys individuals and society.
If the ideal christian life is better for an individuals health, why isn't it taught and promoted?
Why is progressive lifestyle instead promoted as good?
Is a system that tries to make people live better lives better than a system attempting to bring people down to the level worse than animals?

I agree with Otto, all religions including progressivism and athiesm contain the potential for evil. If Otto understood Christians, he would realize Christianity isn't a religion.

freethinking

Given that the number of religious people is much larger - 100 times or 1000 times larger? - than the number of ahteists I seriously doubt that atheists have killed more people than religious people. Please name a source to support your claim.

Is religion the cause of evil?

Yes.

If so, then why have athiests killed more people than non athiests

Killing is not evil to religionists when they do it in defense of their beliefs. Read your book for directions.

Logic shows living the christian life is better for the individual.

Certainly not for those on the receiving end of retribution like copts, infidels, minorities, all martyrs throughout history, jesus the nail god himself, etc.

Getting stonned destroys brain and liver function.

??

"And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:16"

-Like that maube? Or this which is OT:
"If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy?"

Please name a source to support your claim.

FT is being duplicitous as usual as he has been down this road and has been soundly rebuked.

Now this is funny and informative:

I agree with Otto, all religions including progressivism and athiesm contain the potential for evil. If Otto understood Christians, he would realize Christianity isn't a religion.

I get to assume from here on. Im assuming that FT implies that his version of demon worship is the only true one and so participating in it is only confirming reality.

I can also assume that other such aficionados from all the other sects and covens will proclaim the exact same thing. This all inevitably leads to the kind of sinless bigotry, oppression and murder that ALL religions, including FTs own particular flavor, are noted for. Have at it godder.

Are humans inherently good or inherently evil?

By whos standards? It wholly depends on who you ask, and you KNOW this full well. You are just not honest enough to admit it.

Stalin and Moa were athiests. Between them and other top atheists they killed in excess of 75.3 million. I did not include progressives like Hitler who may or may not have had a religion. Given that athiests are at my guess 2% and progressives 40% of the world population they sure kill a lot.

http://www.scaruf...tat.html

Otto, you need to research why christians dont consider themselves a religion. It would be too easy for me to do your work for you.

Otto, why do you say I worship a demon? That is implying you believe there are demons, if there are demons then there is a god. If there is a god, then you cant be an athiest.

Also Otto, where in the New testament does it say we are to kill? Are you ignorant of what the old and new testaments are?

Otto, HB do you ever read up on history?

Whos Moa?

-The godder wants to play Swap the Statistics...

Religious martyrs alone top your atheists:
Muslim martyrs: 80M
Christian martyrs: 70M

-That is, those hapless individuals convinced by their religions to present themselves for killing (usually by other believers), and who would not have been killed otherwise.
http://users.erol...#Martyrs

Also Otto, where in the New testament does it say we are to kill?

Yawn.

" 34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law
36 a mans enemies will be the members of his own household." matt10

-But the Fabricators of xianity were wise enough to include the OT which could not be beat for compelling all sorts of murder and mayhem. Thats what its for.

Otto, why do you say I worship a demon?

See above.

Otto, you need to research why christians dont consider themselves a religion. It would be too easy for me to do your work for you.

Those with ears, let them hear!! NO RELIGION CONSIDERS ITSELF A RELIGION. You think youre special? SO DO THEY.

Theyre not special and NEITHER ARE YOU. Youre ALL part of the SAME EVIL THING.

Can you hear me now?

Otto, you are filled with irrational hate. Did someone who said they were a christian hurt you, or is your hate just picked up from those around you?

You are absolutely right that every religion considers themselves the only true religion, including atheists. Yet it it atheists and progressives that have murdered more people and have caused more death than any other group since the world began. That includes muslims. Are there evil people in every religion? Yes. But answer me this, why is it atheists and progressives have murdered and caused more deaths than any all other religions combined even though they are disproportionally few in numbers?

Otto, you are filled with irrational hate. Did someone who said they were a christian hurt you, or blahblah

FT, you are filled with irrational ardor. Is it because your god promises to take away all your pain and also make all those who have hurt you in the past rot in hell? I think maybe yes.

Yet it it atheists and progressives that have murdered more people and have caused more death than any other group since the world began.

Haha. As godlovers have been around far longer than atheists and progressives, whatever they are, this shows how willfully SELF-STOOPIFIED you is.

Think now - A-theists had to follow Theists. You are being childish, which also typical of religionists. God is their substitute for mommy and daddy comforting them and whupping the bullies.

But it is TIME to leave your childhood behind. You THREATEN the world with your selfishness. As Bill Maher says, "So thats it. Grow up, or die."
http://www.youtub...TVUulGwc

-WATCH this FT. Its GOOD.

My hate is very rational. I hate this:
http://www.msnbc....-africa/

-Religion-mandated pop overgrowth in impoverished regions, and religionists who exploit it. It is happening here:
http://english.al...300.html

-And here:
http://www.guardi...afi-stay

-Amidst swollen pops with nothing left to do but blame leaders for their misery. Its happening here:
http://www.ynetne...,00.html

-And is causing this:
http://www.atimes...k01.html

-And will most certainly lead to this:
http://english.al...786.html

-Because of religion. It is not irrational to hate the cause of these things is it FT? I know, you are quick to blame the other religions for their heresy. But they are just as quick to blame you.

You see what the CAUSE is FT? Of course you dont. I HATE that.

I agree with Otto, all religions including progressivism and athiesm contain the potential for evil. If Otto understood Christians, he would realize Christianity isn't a religion.

Holy semantics, Batman!

More BS from notthinking.

This is actually very similar to the logic racists use to deny their own racism. Damn near everyone believes racism is bad, even the vast majority of racists. They just define racism to be more extreme than them, writing themselves out of the definition.

Similarly, most people know religion to at least some extent is dumb. Fundamentalists represent a minority of all religions that I'm aware of except maybe very small ones with little or no sects. So in order to not view oneself as dumb, he doesn't consider his religion to be a religion. It's above others (true) so the definition doesn't fit. It's not "religion" it's "truth".

It's also sadly ironic that the religious will pontificate all day about the virtues of faith, yet anytime they can (usually in error) attribute faith to atheists, they use it as a point of ridicule. Barring moronic christian illogic, isn't this hypocritical?

I think we should all cool it a bit. Yes, sure, every religion has perpetrated numerous crimes and their holy texts contain obvious nutcase logic.

But, just as we have to add all the bad bits when judging a religion, we also have to consider the good and the neutral bits. After all, the vast majority of christians go to work and pay their taxes, as do most atheists. Let us no forget that missionaries quite often fullfil valuable functions as teachers in poor countries..

Averaging over all these parts results in a slightly negative value for most religiouns, with the possible exception of Budism. But, only slightly negative..

But, just as we have to add all the bad bits when judging a religion, we also have to consider the good and the neutral bits.

Sorry. Hitler loved dogs so what? Nazis did many good things. Let's invite them back - maybe they could clean up the space program.

Averaging over all these parts results in a slightly negative value for most religiouns

You sir are incredibly myopic or are not owning up to your own faith. All the pleasant Religionists who have their bake sales and Xmas pageants give the excuse for jihadists to claim THEIR god wants them to blow up synagogues.

Do you see the connection? You cannot tolerate one without accepting the inevitability of the other. I'm sure German xians were on the whole very amicable people until Luther and the pope convinced them to try to exterminate one another.

This propensity exists in EVERY religion. They all read the same books which tell them this activity is justified in the defense of their religion.

Averaging over all these parts results in a slightly negative value for most religiouns, with the possible exception of Budism. But, only slightly negative..

Again, it's like you're saying that because Nazis saved fully half of Germany and all of western Europe from communism then on average they were only slightly negative. Consider for a minute all the religion-created HORROR in the world today.

It is a simple equation: all religions try to outreproduce one another. 'Be fruitful and multiply. Fill up the earth' with more of us and fewer of them. This leads to masses of starving children, which is obviously the fault of all the infidels next door. Death and destruction soon follow.

Your Sunday school teachers hold up the SAME book as jihadists do. Same fables, same characters, same god, same unequivocal orders. 'Us instead of them.' Convert or, well, die. Gods will.

Otto, relax!

I do not like creationism or when catholics try to stop the spread of contraceptivs. All I am saying, is that most christians behave in a normal fashion. The go to work, pay their taxes and respect our laws.

Surely, if you consider the odd 250 miljon christian americans, this is the most prevalent behavior, don't you think? And if 99.99% of their lives is absolutely harmless, is it not fair to say that christianity is mostly neutral?

About the jihadists.. Let us put this in perspective.. There are several hundered milion muslims over the whole world. That would equate to - say - 0.000005 "9/11"-victims per normal muslim. Both you and I cause more deaths per capita just by using different means of transportation.

Otto, to my knowledge, Hitler did not save Germany or Europe from communism. So, for nazism, you would have to average the fear under which any minority group was living, the victims of the holocausts and the victims of the second world war. And all that from just ~30 years of activity. Now that is what I call a solid negative performance!

Except for buddhists eh? I guess you haven't been following all their mutual slaughter in Sri Lanka? Or along the Laos-cambodia border have you? there they're killing each other over a TEMPLE. Which country has the right to own a Buddhist temple. You tell me religion isn't insanity

Buddhist sects like any other organized delusion are committed to outgrowing each other and all the other religions surrounding them. Suffering, starvation, and war are the result.

And you think this is tolerable just because your Sunday school teachers and wedding preachers are such nice people. They would be nicer if they supported the kind of social structure which thrived on Reason rather than fantasy. The kind which encouraged people to live within their means rather than expecting god to favor them over others less deserving.

I also think that you should consider the possibility that religion is "hard wired" into the religious.

This means that we can probably never turn religious people into atheists.. We just have to nudge them in the right direction when they do things that are bad, such as surpressing contraceptives, advocating creationism in schools and discriminating homosexuals.

As for supporting terrorism, we have laws that can be enforced. You should, however, think that your outburst against any religious person is more likely to alienate the "moderates" whos cooperation both you and I need in order to fight terrorism.

Interesting about the buddhists. Is it really the buddhists that are fighting, or is it the governments? I could be wrong about the buddhists, of course, but so far the active practitioners seem to be anti-violence and have (to my knowledge) not started any crucades.

I have never heard a buddhist interfere in public school policy, nor denounced homosexuals, nor known them to have an ambition to convert the world to buddhism. But, I could be wrong, of course.

Give me a source that supports your claims that buddhist monks are doing the fighting, and I'll see if it convincing.

Surely, if you consider the odd 250 miljon christian americans, this is the most prevalent behavior, don't you think?

Their most prevalent behavior is in reinforcing the lie that god exists. Extremists worldwide can then argue that they have the duty to kill for it. US xians are peaceful, for the most part, today. They're continued belief in god nevertheless endangers the world.

And if 99.99% of their lives is absolutely harmless, is it not fair to say that christianity is mostly neutral?

Again with the numbers. A very small % of Arab extremists took down the twin towers. The Taliban and al quaeda a very small % of the middle east.

You think xians are 'better' than the rest don't you? All the others think the same way about their superstitions. Only a few gens ago US xians were killing off the last of the native Americans. In the name of their god. Their book has not been amended since. Xians in Africa are currently using it to rape and pillage. Joshua the Exterminator.

A short remark. I do not really blame christianity of all the bad things that take place in a christian countries, only those which are a direct consequence of religiousness.

Give me a source that supports your claims that buddhist monks are doing the fighting, and I'll see if it convincing.

Give me a source that says all the murder in the thirty years war was done by priests and ministers. Give me a source that says Jesuits and Dominican friars extincted the Huron or the Oglala. WTF are you talking about?

You think like a believer. You argue like a believer. Admit your allegiance.

I see that you have replied to my post about christian going about their lives just as everybody else.

Funny you should mention the twin towers. Now, the number of victims were actually not that great when you compare them to other causes of deatch that we readilly accept. Every year, for instance, app. 30 000 americans die in trafic accidents, which is ~15 times the number of victims in the twin towers.

The real damage, however, is the fear that this has instilled in the american people, the damage to commerce, the exagerated safety requirements of air trafic and the reduced privacy that has resulted.

These reactions are more or less hysterical and are fueled, not by religious people, but by people like that blow "9/11" completely out of proportion. In other words, by people like you..

christian countries, only those which are a direct consequence of religiousness.

Again, ??? Of course you don't. You are a Xian.
Xian = Islam = judaism = Sikhism = LDS = Buddhism = religionism = superstition. Etc. There is no 'good' superstition.

Funny you should mention the twin towers. Now, the number of victims were actually not that great when you compare them to other causes of deatch that we readilly accept. Every year, for instance, app. 30 000 americans die in trafic accidents, which is ~15 times the number of victims in the twin towers.

So I guess this means it was ok then. And I guess all the religionist murder and mayhem taking place throughout the middle east is also acceptable, because well the worlds a big place and it's not happening HERE is it? And when a nuke finally goes off in manhattan well heck the US has LOTS of cities doesn't it??

And when the world gets sucked into an Israel-Iran war then that's ok too, wars happen all the fucking TIME don't they? I have relatives in the military. I would love to tell them that you and your family would be willing to take their place.

"Give me a source that says all the murder in the thirty years war was done by priests and ministers"

Well, at least the expressed purpose of Luther, for instance, was to change christianity, and this uppset many rulers/monks/commoners, which in turn contributed greatly to the wars that ensued.

It makes sense to distinguish between what is caused by what cause. Otherwise, one could argue that education in the US is responsible for all high-way robbery. The bald headed eagle is to blame for the arthritis of old people.

Sure, there are no remotely plausable links, but we just decided to throw every bit of logic out the window, didn't we?

Well, at least the expressed purpose of Luther, for instance, was to change christianity, and this uppset many rulers/monks/commoners, which in turn contributed greatly to the wars that ensued.

So... What cause can we discern for all those non-clerical buddhists who are killing each other over a temple, or in Sri Lanka? Don't their monks tell sri lankans that it is buddhas will that they just sit in the dirt and starve because there are simply too many of them for that very tiny island? Tell me your thoughts. What would Buddha do? Or more appropriately what would Gandhi do? Sit in the dirt and starve?

"..So I guess this means it was ok then. And I guess all the religionist murder and mayhem taking place throughout the middle east is also acceptable.."

Every death is a death, nothing more, nothing less. By reacting the way you do, you actually help the terrorists to reach their goal: to instill fear and to change the american way of life.

And when the nuke finaly blows in Manhatan, think about how you made it possible for the extremists to hide among the moderates by alienating those who could have been allies in the fight against terrorism.

"So... What cause can we discern for all those non-clerical buddhists who are kill.. Sit in the dirt and starve?"

I doubt that a Buddhist would say anything about the wishes of Buddha. You see, Buddha is not a god in the normal meaning of a supernatural, all powerfull being. He is simply the first human to reach the wisdom to escape the "curse" of re-birth. But you knew that, right?

Really, until you give a reference for your implausable claims, I will treat them as just a "lot of hot air". And what would Gandhi do? Gandhi was advocating passive resistance, so perhaps he would have told whoever inhabits the temple to stay put and talk with the invaders.

And yes, Gandhi almost single handendly managed to free India from the british empire, which at the time was the largest empire ever to have existed on earth.

Every death is a death, nothing more, nothing less.

The deaths of your friends and family members would affect you a little differently.

By reacting the way you do, you actually help the terrorists to reach their goal: to instill fear and to change the american way of life.

Sorry. When attacked you retaliate. Attack is the best defense. 9/11 demanded a response. If it happens again we will respond appropriately. But our actions since 9/11 have reduced the chance whereas before it was a certainty.

Pearl harbor brought about the end of imperial japan. This is how it works.
cont

think about how you made it possible for the extremists to hide among the moderates

Where there is religion there will always be extremists willing to blame their self-imposed suffering on infidels and heretics. This is nothing new. The west knows very well how to deal with them.

Let me divulge a little secret: as religions have always made extremism Inevitable, what you need to do is create a cause for them to rally behind before they can create one themselves.

Be the enemy that they hate. Let them rise up, identify themselves and their families. Arm them. Give them some victories to make them think they might have a chance to win. And then send them into your guns in droves, making them die in great heaps.

Pops are reduced, hotheads have been culled, the pragmatic who remain are usually more conducive to cooperation. This is happening right now in afghanistan. Bin laden was on OUR side.

The secret you see is to command BOTH sides of the fight. That way you can't lose.

I doubt that a Buddhist would say anything about the wishes of Buddha. You see, Buddha is not a god in the normal meaning of a supernatural, all powerfull being. He is simply the first human to reach the wisdom to escape the "curse" of re-birth. But you knew that, right?

Snore. Whatever. Buddhists are killing buddhists as we speak, and they make excellent martyrs. Millions presented themselves for killing in India, the birthplace of the religion. Not many left there at all. This is called 'demographic engineering'. Were they ever reborn? Who knows? We do know their beliefs caused them to be killed in great heaping piles. This is the greatest effect of religion in THIS life, which is all that matters.

And what would Gandhi do? Gandhi was advocating passive resistance, so perhaps blahblah

Uh I was making a joke son. The few million death which resulted from gandhis 'peaceful' actions and the creation of Pakistan, are his true legacy. Religionist of course.

Otto, your ignorance of history and religion is truly staggering! Are you by any chance the "Otto" from the movie "A fish called Wanda"?

No, the conflict inside of India is between a muslims and hindus, not between muslims and buddhists. Wrong Otto, the conflict between Pakistand and India is about the region Kashmir, i.e. it is a conflict about land with no religious motives what so ever. No Otto, buddhists do not make excelent martyrs, you are confusing the religions again. And Gandhi was a political leader, not a religios leader, and his anti violent actions did not result in millions of deaths. Need I go on?

All I can say Otto - it seems pointless to go on discussing these things with you - is that it is very fortuntely that the men and women that are working for CIA/FBI/NSA are not recruited from your IQ-percentile.

No, the conflict inside of India is between a muslims and hindus, not between muslims and buddhists

Thats because most all indian buddhists were KILLED OFF? Millions of them.

Kashmir, i.e. it is a conflict about land with no religious motives what so ever

Muslim kashmiris are attempting to conquer the region by OUTREPRODUCING their enemies. The conflict is about religionist imperialism dimwit.

No Otto, buddhists do not make excelent martyrs

Remember these guys dimwit?
http://en.wikiped...uang_Duc

-READ about buddhist martyrdom:
http://en.wikiped...uddhists

-And buddhists enjoy persecuting as well:
http://russellsmu...rma.html

-In sri lanka they WAGE WAR:
http://www.telegr...war.html

-But violence is only to be expected of ANY religion. Whether killing or inviting death upon themselves. ALWAYS.

It always cracks me up when pacifist buddhist monks fight each other:
http://wwrn.org/a...s/24855/

-Probably an argument over which group was the more peaceful.

-Hey- read the news today? A norwegian fundamentalist was sent on a mission by jesus:

"By time he was arrested Friday evening, Breivik is believed to have killed 84 people on the island of Utoeya and at least seven in the Oslo bombing.

"Norwegian police describe Breivik as a conservative, right-wing extremist and a Christian fundamentalist. Norwegian media ... describe him as a conservative and nationalist. His views are hard to characterize. He appears to hate communists and Muslims and harbors right-wing views. But he is not a neo-Nazi."

-Jesus saves!