They should have the chance, but regarding the NY one, they should, but not near ground zero IMO, it's saying to the West 'We brought you down and we build on you, you are nothing'
By all means have it in Muslim neighborhoods, I have nothing against that, but, religions go both ways. Do Muslims let Christians pray in peace? Hindus? Jews?
Bringing the point forward is not feeding the fire. Its a serious debate.
I myself believe religion has a very serious place in the world. Religion is far more than a reason to answer who our creator is. I think we would all agree that natural selection and evolution (Darwin's theory) has got us to the place we live today.
What is interesting, for me atleast is where do human values come from? Evolution doesn't explain this. For the fittest species to survive would it survive by being what we call 'human' (tolerant,kind,helpful) I doubt that it would.
With regards to the religious centre being built near the WTC. I dont see the problem, obviously I can see why it could cause tension but it shouldn't be allowed to. As it has been said, just because they called themselves Muslim's doesn't mean they are. If you do not follow its teachings then how can you be? I'll tell you now that the perpetrators of the 911 attacks were not following Islam or any religion for that matter.
Being kind could have been a trait which avoided someone getting their head chopped off in the early stages of evolution. All these things and attributes can be easily explained by evolution.
Obviously without religion we would all be living in caves and chop our heads off.
If we didn't had the bible our culture would ve taken a different ferry tale with about the same set of rules.
Clearly a change in reasoning due to the culture seeing as we're all normally programmed by nature to run and preserve ourselves if all else is lost. But perhaps it's a loophole. What if the culture's stance on death rose up from the fact that the respective people looked highly upon those who gave their lives for the rest to survive.
Although you have given a very brief definition. There are quite a few scenarios in which one would be given the option of "accepting death" so what specific case are we talking about?
Indeed it is a broad scenario, and it's hard to give you a specific case because in one way or another I'll tailor it to suite what I said. However some religions (if not all, I'm not sure) teach of an afterlife, and for instance religious radicals may end their own life along with others to serve their beliefs, and I cannot see how this is related to evolution.
NOT allowing the mosque to be made violates the 1st amendment and property rights.
2nd Amendment violates Christian commandment number 6 in Exodus 20:2-17 and Matthew 5:38-40. Christian fundamentalists getting involved in politics violates Mark 12, I Timothy 2:1-3, Acts 5, ect...
I could go on, but this thread might get closed anyway.
The actions themselves have explanations in psychology if not in other sciences as well. The way we interact with our environment is strongly related to the way we perceive it which is in turn related to the way we have evolved.
As said above, we are programmed by nature to have a sense of self preservation and a desire to perpetuate. Pretty logical so far. Wouldn't have survived so far if we didn't had the will to live. Going back in time when predators where a constant danger to let's say a tribe, members of said tribe would be presented with deadly scenarios. When faced with such scenarios, they would automatically start to put in balance all the factors and then take a decision. Let's leave all the factors but two alone: the instinct to survive as an individual and as a group. They will move on to measure and balance these two instincts. Those that put individual survival above will flee and those that considered group survival to be of more significance will sacrifice themselves to allow the rest of the tribe to escape to safety. What's remarkable is that those that choose to sacrifice themselves will rarely be at peace with the decision. This is due to the fact that the instinct to survive as a group will be in direct conflict with the instinct to survive as an individual. So effectively if we choose to buy time for the rest of the group, we will be nevertheless reprimanded by our mind for going against our most basic rule.
A couple millenniums until the present day, not much has changed in the way we think. If those religious fanatics consider that by committing suicide, they greatly help the survival of their group, then they will do it. You could also say that there is a loophole when it comes to religious fanatics. If they have a strong believe in afterlife then they don't see suicide as ending their existence. They see it as a gate through which they just simply continue to exist in another form, in another realm so basically not going against the basic rule of survival. And even if it does,the inner conflict between instincts mentioned above applies to this situation as well.
I think people here need to be educated abit more about the middle east and aswell the Islamic faith. Im not Muslim, though i understand its morals and values. I come from the middle east and i must admit, flymike, you need to learn afew things about the Islamic faith before mumbling junk on here assuming you understand what an extremist is and their views.
if anyone doesnt understand certian things, give me a PM and maybe ill explain in more detail answers. Perhaps not the best thing to post things here because knowing the internet, things will get twisted.
- Morality is doing what is right regardless of what you are told.
>> Morality is ultimately meaningless without God, it is merely relative to the society you live in. If you do not like someone else's moral choices who are you to judge them, upon what vacuous moral high ground do you pretend to stand?
- Religion is doing what you are told regardless of what is right.
>> Secular humanism is doing what you or society arbitrarily think is right & not doing what is thought wrong, despite there ultimatey being no such thing as 'right' or 'wrong'. What 'is' simply 'is'.
yes it does and of course it would
much less intelligent animals live in groups/packs/herds etc which offers loads of advantages and does require all of the above supposedly human bahaviours to work for any length of time
once you get to the point where offsrping takes at least 14 years to mature to any leves at which it can support itself living as a herd and having the "humanity" necessary to do so becomes inevitable
That isn't exactly true. They just interview one of the people on the news here, he basically said Terry Jones and someone else is going up to New York together and that Imam in New York hasn't agreed to a thing they are saying he has.
