(Part 3) Best religious history books according to redditors
We found 1,045 Reddit comments discussing the best religious history books. We ranked the 307 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 41-60. You can also go back to the previous section.
Muhammad required this ridiculous restriction because he was pandering to the Jews who eventually discarded him anyways. Check out People vs Muhammad
This actually looks legit. The SPLC reported on a servery sent out to some teachers at schools. "Then reported that 40 percent of the more than 10,000 educators who responded to the survey “have heard derogatory language directed at students of color, Muslims, immigrants and people based on gender or sexual orientation." However they didn't report about the 20% who reported derogatory language directed at white students.
They found this out from the SPLC themselves. "Pressed, SPLC spokeswoman Kirsten Bokenkamp finally revealed that “about 20 percent answered affirmatively to that question.”"
Something I fished up well looking was this. https://www.amazon.com/Infiltration-Muslim-Subversives-Penetrated-Washington/dp/1595552480?tag=nypost-20 The writer of this story seems to have an agenda to push, but this story also seems to be correct. (You can be both bias and right or non bias and wrong.)
More links:
Here is the story from the SPLC: https://www.splcenter.org/20161128/trump-effect-impact-2016-presidential-election-our-nations-schools
Here is the servery: http://www.tolerance.org/sites/default/files/u76079/Teaching%20Tolerance%20Post-Election%20Survey.pdf
Here is the org that sent out the servery: http://www.tolerance.org/
I'll also note that he servery is not very scientific and they do mention that in the original report by the SPLC.
There is no crisis in the middle east. There is territoriality of the kind seen since the Babylonians, and there is extremism practiced primarily by disaffected European muslims against the rest of the West.
source
The way to solve the perceived crisis in the middle east is to eliminate foreign involvement in the middle east so that what are primarily local struggles can continue to be local struggles. This can be achieved by energy independence from OPEC. Which, since Saudi Arabia likely hit peak oil in 2004 or so, is an eventuality anyway.
source
To deal with the extremists that come to our borders, the best approach would be to ensure young, educated Muslims in Europe a place at the table and a sense of belonging within their communities so that they do not feel disenfranchised from their countrymen and do not align themselves with internet extremism.
source
As to religious extremism of all stripes, be it Islamic, Christian or Jewish, the solution is always to integrate, to respect, and to divorce political and economic enterprises from religious enterprises. One thing few people remember is that Osama Bin Laden became a radical when the US opened bases in Saudi Arabia for Operation Desert Shield (his quote at the time was "once we let the infidel in, he will never leave). One thing even fewer people remember is that after September 11, we pulled our aircraft out of Saudi Arabia and there have been no Bin Laden-endorsed attacks against the US since.
source
Yes, you have to fucking read. But you know what? The Internet can't solve everything.
For those interested:
Here's a solid resource: http://teachmiddleeast.lib.uchicago.edu/foundations/golden-age-islam/
I'd also highly recommend the following book as a concise, effective introduction to Islam that comes across as both objective and favorable toward Islam - a rare feat for anyone. Not to mention the author is a renowned religious scholar who taught at MIT, Berkeley and Syracuse: http://www.amazon.com/Islam-Concise-Introduction-Huston-Smith/dp/0060095571
I wouldn't get too caught up in lengthy theological discussions about Islam. I'm sure you're well aware of this already, but Islam is often viewed in such a volatile manner that such discussions will only serve to distract and possibly misinform your students.
Finally, thank you for reaching out and inquiring. It can be quite the mixed bag of results on the ol' interwebs even from folks with the best of intentions. I'd really stick with academic sources at this point and not stray too far into apologetics.
Also, this an informative and engaging TED Talk on the Quran by a Lesley Hazlelton, a Jewish writer no less: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOnwG_GgAqg
Paul Sperry's "Infiltration" makes it very clear and should be compulsory reading for every Western Civilisation citizen.
https://www.amazon.com/Infiltration-Muslim-Subversives-Penetrated-Washington/dp/1595552480/ref=sr_1_1/155-0055977-2818765?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1474623421&sr=1-1&keywords=Infiltration
http://www.independentsentinel.com/the-ten-year-plan-of-the-muslim-brotherhood/
http://shoebat.com/2014/10/09/30-year-muslim-plan-control-america-six-years-go/
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/the-muslim-brotherhood-in-america/
https://counterjihadreport.com/muslim-brotherhoods-plan-for-america/
Building on that, many Evangelicals believe in an "Authoritative God" (to use the terminology in the excellent book America's Four Gods: What We Say about God—and What That Says about Us), a God that is both active in human affairs and judgmental—in other words, an authoritative father figure who lays down the law and expects obedience. Trump actively symbolizes this same authoritative viewpoint, so many of them are willing to overlook his other flaws. It's not that farfetched; look at how they generally treat sins like gluttony and greed compared to hot-button issues like homosexuality or abortion.
While not all Evangelicals believe this way, many of them do (as shown in the above book using comprehensive data from the national Baylor Religion Survey).
Edit: A word.
Sort of. Outside of the extant christian denominations in the US which went through different phases of popularity (the variant streams of Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and also the Catholic and Orthodox [large O]communities) the 19th Century was a time when several factors saw the birthing of many unorthodox offshoots from Protestant streams- examples include the Millerites in the 1830s, itself spawning the seventh day adventists a few years later; but also the Jehovah's witnesses. Of these, Mormonism is the first, but many radical revisions of Christianity - including Protestantism itself - happened over several centuries previously. The Quakers, Mennonites, Unitarians and Anabaptists, as well as the more 'mainstream' or 'orthodox' [small o] denominations I listed first, are all examples of where political, ideological, theological, or other motives lead people to revise their belief system, or understand it differently, or coalesce with others on a similar journey.
Generally, Christians tend to distiguish between denominations and cults by asking whether a 'denomination' has claimed an absolute monopoly on truth. That is, the reason Evangelical Baptists and Methodists both consider each other Christians is that their differences, though proper disagreements in themselves, are seen as superfluous enough in the light of general Christianity for them to be seen as largely in agreement. What many of the groups I listed (though not all completely, nor none to no degree) went through was this process of establishing themselves as fundamentally Christian in particular ways, whilst going about their ideological differences in ways which promoted them as superfluous.
The social context you're referring to did exist, but it is such a large nebulous contextual amalgamation of all things Modern, that it's difficult to describe except in big books like this. at the end of the day, Mormonism was created by one person, and then a bunch of people who felt that the changes they made to Christianity were necessary, and all of their motivations and accomplishments are reasonably well documented. the social context in america, particularly for mormons, included the Westward expansion, the possibility of new power, and nationhood, which gave them more of a possibility of surviving the process I described above, where the other streams of Christianity criticised it as a cult because of its large departures from orthodoxy [small o], and closed communities.
To sum up, the social context which encouraged experimentation and heterodoxy with doctrine and practice has been present since Christianity's inception.
Some nonfiction books I enjoyed that came to mind:
In the Dark Places of Wisdom is a good book that has much relevant information from a philosophical and historical perspective.
Diarmaid Macculloch's History of Christianity: the first three thousand years is pretty thorough.
Universal reconciliation has had a pretty interesting history in Christianity as well.
God Bless Brigitte Gabriel! See more: https://www.amazon.com/People-Muhammad-Psychological-Analysis/dp/0994362986/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Letters to a Young Contrarian
One of my absolute favorites. Probably the best ratio of powerful prose to pages ever. Slim read. Highly recommended.
My favourite intentional look-alike from the political book section...
Godless: The Church of Liberalism by Ann Coulter
Soulless: Ann Coulter and the Right-Wing Church of Hate by Susan Estrich
I know this is a facetious thread but Amazon has The Zen Experience ebook for free (I believe you can download it to the kindle PC client if you don't have a kindle / android / iOS device). It's an abridged but still somewhat lengthy history from Lao Tzu and the Buddha to Hakuin so be warned
A religion is a complex social structure, much more than just its founding text. That said, the texts are themselves very complex artifacts with a long (and murky) history, plus layers and layers of interpretation and commentary. But if you are only a "budding" psychologist, you should definitely start with one of the survey books like Huston Smith's The World's Religions. That will give you a better overview of the major religions and you can decide which (if any) are worth spending your time on studying.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/sta/
Secret Teaching of All Ages (1928)
Fair warning, this is from an esoteric philosopher so there is no academic distance. As for a more of a balanced introduction with less content.
The Western Esoteric Tradition
> I suppose what I'm trying to get to the bottom of is: How to best address what I feel is the completely baseless claim that Islam is inherently violent (I often point to a wider context of colonialism and oppression as an explanation), and also how Islam and Buddhism can benefit each other.
A great place to start is Huston Smith's seemingly innocuous little book entitled Islam: A Concise Introduction. It quickly dispels the notions of Islam as 'inherently violent' without being mired in some doctrinal labyrinth. It's taken from his chapter on Islam in his monumental work 'The World's Religions.' He published it as a separate book following 9/11. His credentials speak for themselves. As a side, I had the honor of meeting him not long ago at LMU when he received the university's Bridge Builder award.
Misinformation and ignorance fan the flames of Islamophobia more than anything else. Put another way, imagine what the world's perspective of Buddhism would be during WWII if there was as much access to (mis)information as there is today. Similar rhetoric used by the likes of ISIS was present in Japan. Take this quote from a Zen monk exhorting the virtues of Japanese imperialism during WWII:
"If ordered to] march: tramp, tramp, or shoot: bang, bang. This is the manifestation of the highest Wisdom [of Enlightenment]. The unity of Zen and war of which I speak extends to the farthest reaches of the holy war [now under way]." - From Zen At War
I hope that helps a little :).
Nää kun lukee niin tulee vähän paska housuun. Ei välttämättä näitä ennen edes osaa paskoo housuunsa. Silmä ei nää asioita, joita aivo ei ymmärrä.
Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years gets recommended quite a lot. I'm only part of the way through, but it's a great book. Unfortunately, I don't see a large print edition, but you can get the ebook if that's an option.
If you like podcasts, I'd recommend starting with Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean and moving to History of the Papacy. There are also classes/podcasts on the history of the Orthodox and Coptic Churches, as well as the Reformation.
There's a lot of social science literature about images of God. Folks "see" God differently and one of the scales actually does measure on a "Mother" and Father" dimension. There's also a loving vs. judging dimension. You would be really surprised how much diversity there is.
I could dump a ton of cites on this as I was attempting to write a paper on the topic a few years ago. If you really want a decent, non-academic introduction you could look at a book called "The Four Gods" by Paul Froese and Chris Bader.
Thanks for pointing this out, I usually try to read books like this even if I completely disagree with the theories they put forward.
I'll need something to read after I finish Uriel's Machine.
A former CIA analyst wrote a book with this very premise, called "A World without Islam". Its well worth the read, but the short version of his assessment is that most of the underlying conflicts in that region would still be there in some form or fashion, as you would just be replacing the current dynamic with a more drawn out version of the Eastern vs Western Christianity conflict.
For example, the crusades are often pointed to as an example of Christianity attacking the Muslim world and a root for many of our modern issues, but the crusaders were also perfectly happy to attack and loot Eastern Orthodox Christians they encountered.
Another example is the Israeli Palestinian conflict. By and large, Palestinian Christians are also opposed to Israel, and many of the founders of the PLO were Christians.
Ah yes, thank you for reminding me. This comes from the book, "The Zen Experience" by Thomas Hoover.
There is actually a book on it, haven't read it, ex-CIA guy apparently too. However, from a theological perspective, Muslims considered each truly revealed religion to be Islam(submission to the will of God), since the time of Adam, Noah, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad, peace be upon them all. In any case, link to the book, haven't read it, can't vouch for it personally but if I recall right, someone I know recommended a look:
https://www.amazon.com/World-Without-Islam-Graham-Fuller/dp/0316041203/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1527258736&sr=8-1&keywords=a+world+without+islam
Blyth's Mumonkan
The Zen Experience by Thomas Hoover
and these
if looking for Ch'an/Zen those are great starting points, but don't miss the moon for the finger pointing at it. That which is before you is what you are looking for.
For more see this interesting read
https://www.amazon.com/Godless-Church-Liberalism-Ann-Coulter/dp/1400054214
https://www.amazon.com/Bounded-Choice-Believers-Charismatic-Cults/dp/0520240189
You are starting from flawed assumptions.
2)That is god is the god you agree with because of the religion you just happen to follow vs Islam, Hindu, Jewish, Zoroaster, Christian, Buddhist, Jain, Native American, ancient Greek, Roman, Egyptian, etc, etc etc.
What I find annoying with your question is you presume to talk about god from your set bias. Its a done deal when you talk about god as automatically being Christian.
America's Four Gods: What We Say about God--and What That Says about Us
Even with Christians have differences concepts of what god is and isn't.
As a non believer its not about god its the issues with Christianity that sustains my doubt.
I've seen variants of the story with the "man" replaced by "angel", for some reason. To be exact, it was here.
Same book (which is otherwise wonderfully written, refreshingly non-judgmental and such) also says Buddha's teaching was devoid of the supernatural and traditions, even though reading other parts of the book carefully already contradict this.
There is a Kindle edition - https://www.amazon.co.uk/People-Muhammad-Psychological-Analysis/dp/0994362986
Here is the mobile version of your link
http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Cosmic-War-Globalization/dp/1400066727
Letters to a Young Contration by Christopher Hitchens
>The noise, industrial, and esoteric circles are filled with people who have pretensions of knowing things about history, sociology, religion, philosophy, etc. But all they know is tiny smattering of fringe trivia. Robust knowledge on any of the topics they claim interest in is rare, and they have a stripped down cartoon view of history shorn of any and all context. It can be useful and enlightening to examine the fringes and the extremes and learn things about society from those, but a lot of people seem to ONLY be interested in the fringes and the extremes. To the point that they have no idea how it interacts with the larger social conversation or its place in this historical dialectic.
I would definitely agree here. The problem I think is not just that focus on the extremes; you can make good art out of the extremities of human experience, it's more the lack of depth, of any sort of intellectually serious engagement. I mean, there's two types of people interested in the occult and it's history; there's people who read books like this and this, and there's people who read books like this and this. The same with any 'dark' topic; murder, sexual fetishism, war and genocide, and so on and so on; the lurid and extreme attracts lurid and extreme writing, often penned by Garth Marenghi like characters who've 'written more books than they've read'. You need to be able to hack through the bullshit, and a lot of that comes, as you say, from having a knowledge of the broader history. I mean, I say this as someone who has made art books about true crime and the occult, for full disclosure.
> (and one single in particular, and you might know which one I mean) have REALLY put me on edge.
As you're American, I'm going to guess Klan Kountry, which I haven't heard actually. I only have a couple of their albums; unfortunately not only are they obviously either fascists or tasteless, they're not actually very good. Anenzephalia is a little better. Actually, looking at the details of that release, I can definitely see why you'd steer clear. In fact, most of the stuff on Tesco Organisation is kind of second rate, and I've heard bad things about the label generally. As for Deutsch Nepal, I'm really not sure; I've never read much about them, but the name seems to be a possible nod to Nazi mysticism, plus there's the use of swastika-like imagery on the covers of A Silent Siege and Erotikon. It's not that much, compared to some of the others, but enough perhaps.
> He would probably find it even more strange that he's so admired by a person like me who does My Little Pony fanart.
Now that, I'm sure s/he'd get completely; GPO knows the ins and outs of fannish obsession with h/er Brian Jones thing. Read the liner notes to Godstar: Thee Director's Cut sometime if you get a chance.
>I so agree. Coil...I used to be obsessed with them, and from 1999-2001 tried to gather up as much of their discography as I could. I think most of it is in my closet right now since our apartment doesn't have a lot of places to store cd's. One of my goals is to eventually go back and get as much of their complete discography as I can. I've been fascinated with them ever since I was in high school and read an interview in Trent Reznor in which he discussed how much they influenced his music. Something about what he said intrigued me, and when I finally heard them I was entranced.
My obsession goes back a similiar way for me, though I'm a touch younger than you I think...I started listening to Coil just in time for Jhon's death, but not that I could actually get to see them, which I will probably always regret. The footage of those late gigs... and of course the recordings...can you imagine having been there in the audience during the recording of ...And The Ambulance Died in His Arms? Just thinking about it gives me chills. I think they were just a perfect musical duo; Christopherson had a very sophisticated and innovative approach to electronic music, and Balance just had that...intensity. I think that's something that so many of the pale imitators in industrial and related things miss. It's one thing that has always made the best Current 93 stuff stand out to me as well; especially listening to some of the best live recordings, it's clear that, whatever else you might think about Dave Tibet (nutter, crypto-fascist, can't sing, too Christian, not Christian enough) he's really not phoning it in. His performance is so utterly demented and broken at times (Black Ships Ate The Sky is a great example) that personally I can't help but be compelled. Maybe that's a bit of a trick, but I don't think so.
>these guys actually knew a lot about art and music history, and understood a lot about modern art and why it was important. Even a guy as abrasive and intentionally silly and lo-fi as Monte Cazazza, I'm pretty sure, actually went to art school.
Yeah, Cazazza definitely went to art school; such an overlooked hero of early industrial for me. I love how damned entertaining he makes his cartoon misanthropy; If Thoughts Could Kill is a great song to listen to on the bus on a rainy morning. And of course, GPO and Cosey Fanni Tutti had been doing gallery shows and performance art as COUM Transmissions for years before TG was even a thing.
Yes quite a few if you are really interested. I have some books you can check out as well. Warning on this though is that you really need to sort through the bullshit. Docu's like Ancient Aliens for example contain a lot of good points and a lot of really crazy ones. I have a folder with a bunch of stuff I have compiled and I can share some of it with you. I will get some together today. One book you may want to check out is called Uriel's Machine. The Author presents a lot of science and facts to back up his theories.
I will work on getting some links together in some kind of order if you want them.
If you want to know more, from a solid academic perspective, I suggest http://www.amazon.com/Worlds-Religions-Revised-Updated-ebook/dp/B004I43MPE It's a well written book that is an extremely common textbook for Introduction to World Religions classes in colleges for 30+ years now. Smith's book on Christianity is also great. You should be able to get either through your local library, or online for pennies (plus shipping).
What do you think the objectives of a terrorist organization are? How would you counter said terrorist organization? How would you convince your fellow representatives to follow your initiative? How would you work against an Islamic power of Iran due to the collapse of Irans religious/local rivals due to american military presence in Iraq/Afghanistan?
Might I suggest reading How to Win a Cosmic War, Thinking Like a terrorist, Afghanistan: The Bear Trap, and Imperial Hubris to get some background on why the United States has/is losing the greater war on terror.
not according to the American right wing (each word is a different link)
History of Religious Ideas, Vol 1, Vol 2 and Vol 3. by Mircea Eliade A comprehensive comparison and history of different religions, religious ideas and ways in which myths work. Was a real eye-opener
_
LE - Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam by Michel Onfray
>In some way however my worry remains. Are these modern incarnations more 19th century spiritualism or new age woo woo? I can respect that these beliefs tap into an anti-ascetic desire in people and a genuine practice could result. But even new age religions like Wicca and paganism are often shallow at least compared to the complexities and depth that exists in well established age old religions. I speak as an atheist with no compassion for established beliefs, but when you give a traditional system thousands of years to parse out it's theology and practice it gains a depth unknown to recent reincarnations of religious belief. This isn't anyone's fault but it doesn't help that these beliefs are represented by some the more er floaty types in the west.
Well the New Age and 19th century Spiritualism are actually modern incarnations of far more ancient phenomena. I am referring to the field of study called "Western Esotericism" which covers ancient Hermeticism, Gnostic thought, Theosophy, Alchemy, Theosophy, Kabbalah, etc all the way down to the New Age, Spiritualism, and others. The New Age and Spiritualism are in fact rooted in this phenomenon, and cannot be properly understood without it. If you're interested the book New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Thought is the best book on the subject, and in it the author, a highly respected and influential scholar in the field, shows how New Age ideas are actually deeply rooted in Western Esoteric ideas, and are in fact just modern incarnations of the same. As for Wicca and Paganisn you're a little closer to the mark because there isn't much evidence for it before Gerald Gardner's creation of it (that he framed as merely a public revival of a long underground Pagan system, which historical evidence has a hard time backing up). While I understand your point that "established religions" have more time to parse out and elaborate a more consistent and rooted theology and practice, it's also true that no religion started in a vacuum, and in fact most of the time new religions just work with material already existing. We can see this with Christianity, in that it's more or less an offshoot of Judaism that adopted many Pagan beliefs involving the resurrection of god, and furthermore ancient Israelite thought owes much to the religion of the Ancient Near East as well. Buddhist thought cannot be understood outside of the shramana milieu surrounding its genesis on the fifth century BCE. My point in this is that none of these religions, even in their infancy, sprang out of thin air. Thousands of years later they're accepted as fully formed religions, but in their infancy they looked a bit more like modern day Wicca in the ways that they creatively worked with already existing material in the creation of a semi-novel worldview, in the absence of thousands of years of credibility-building. And modern Wicca and Neopaganism has the entire wealth of Europe's pagan past to work with as raw material for their own worldviews, and this chain of lineage is real for them, so as a scholar I have a commitment to study how these issues of legitimacy are dealt with in the creation of a worldview that is whole-heartedly believed in.
>My question to you since you study this is where does the occult even come from? I get that it's a combination of Kabbala, Gnosticism, and western mystical beliefs, but when did it arise and who lumped this disconnected series of beliefs together in the west? The evangelical Christian revival and romantic metaphysics movement seemed to occur at the same time in America, a time when people were furiously searching for meaning but surely someone had to "put it all together" into a practice no?
This is something I'm still trying to learn the complete history of, but reading some other books on Western Esotericism could help lay the foundation. This history is a great overview of Western Esotericism as a whole, and towards the end it discusses Kabbalah and the other components of modern day Occultism. We should keep in mind that the word "Occultism" is a word used to describe a various number of interrelated traditions, so take it with a grain of salt. Its development wasn't the work of any one person or innovator, but over the decades and centuries it subtly morphed, elaborated, and acquired new directions just like the history of Western Esotericism, and all religions for that matter. As for precise details that's something I'm working on understanding myself, but the books I mentioned should help for your general inquiries.
This is a much better explanation of what the whole "invention" of Al Qaeda was. Anyone interested should read "How to Win a Cosmic War" for an interesting background on the whole idea.
Actually, I do own them. They cannot leave my possession, and if they do, they can be returned to me as my possession. The closest thing they are to humans are small children, and I don't even agree with that. They belong to me, regardless of it being right, wrong, or indifferent. If you are a dog-owner you own a dog, simple as that. My dog has no independence outside of that which I allow, and that is fine because he cannot be trusted in society to build an adequate life for himself. He loves me because he doesn't know any better and because I treat him well.
The explanation she gives is very similar to the religious "I don't hate you as a sinner, I just hate the sin you commit." They're wiggle words. The idea of branding yourself as "XYZ" and not "like the rest" creates an "us vs. them" mentality. That is to say, I only believe what I believe because I've been indoctrinated in to it. You're actually speaking to a former vegetarian, believe it or not. Granted, I didn't stick with it long, but this isn't the first time that I've ever thought about it.
I understand your mentality, I just do not agree with it beyond that something should be done to stop some of the more egregious actions taken against these farm animals. After all, “It is a narrow mind which cannot look at a subject from various points of view.”
A dog gets killed instead of "going to prison" for murdering a human being (because if they are our equals, than they can commit murder) because they won't be able to dwell on their actions and rectify them. They do not have the capacity to do so. They don't go on trial for manslaughter for the same reason a baby doesn't go on trial if they commit murder in some way. They are not responsible for their actions because we've deemed their actions instinctual, which they are.
And of mosquitoes, why can't they just kill us all off in self defense? They're equal to us, so their need to defend themselves should be just as important as our need to defend ourselves. If animals started revolting against farmers and killing them off to protest their treatment (which they never will because they are not intelligent enough to recognize the complete weight of the situation that they are in) would that be justified? If so, why aren't you helping to kill for them to escape their enslavement, if they are no different from Jews at Auschwitz?
They are racist but you don't understand why they are racist. I've met a few former Neo Nazi's and spoken with a practicing neo-nazi, and beyond looking at the whole origin of the hatred of Jews (because it is extensive as hell) they don't see them as actual humans. They're treated like animals because they feel threatened by them, and they think it will cause a "white genocide" of sorts. Ironically, the woman's points in her video are very similar to the points made in this video. That isn't to call her a Nazi by any means, but to compare the Nazi movement for eugenics to the animal rights movement is a bunch of complete nonsense.
I've done my reading on speciesism. It is not, nor will it ever be as important as the issues with racism and those with sexism. Animals cannot have any form of beliefs. That is to say, they cannot dictate what is right or wrong, only what is. Belief as an idea is something that only humans possess. An animal cannot be religious, nor can an animal be an atheist. An animal cannot support slavery and an animal cannot be opposed to slavery. They do not have interests in the same way that humans do. Their interests are guided only by instinct as a means through which to reproduce. Morality only exists in the minds of those who can rationalize it, and animals simply can not. Women can, and people of all races can. Therefore animal rights are not on the same level as racism or sexism.
I do want to thank you though for having me read and look up those things though. Genuinely, not to be an asshole. I feel like I came out more developed as a thinker and more readily able to defend my belief that eating meat is not immoral. Though, you can work on not insulting the person giving the argument. The idea of a debate isn't to "beat" the other person, it's to enlighten them to the correct way of viewing things, while being open to having your mind changed as well. You should read Letters to a Young Contrarian by Christopher Hitchens. Absolutely wonderful book.
Still open to any rebuttals you have to make though.
Yeah, I misunderstood the context of your post...so I deleted mine...
I found a copy of [this trash] (https://www.amazon.com/Infiltration-Muslim-Subversives-Penetrated-Washington/dp/1595552480) at my parents house yesterday. I felt dirty even picking that up... I saw a corner of it under some papers and thought it might be something similar to Robert Ferrigno's "...Assassin" books.
Actually there is some debate over the translation of the piece of text. If I remember correctly (sorry, I don't have a citation), I read somewhere that it specifically says, in one translation at least, that it's only applicable if you defend your faith, i.e. if you are attacked first.
Also, the Qu'ran is pretty explicit about not killing or harming other people in plenty of other passages. But this doesn't matter to those who want young men to do their dirty work for them. You don't tend to see the masterminds behind this blowing themselves up, those who do so are just pawns.
If this is a topic that interests you, I can't recommend How to Win A Cosmic War highly enough for a really interesting perspective on the topic. It is certainly explained/debated better than I can
If your interested, read up. But no one on this site reads books...
> http://www.amazon.com/Disinformation-Strategies-Undermining-Attacking-Promoting/dp/1936488604
> http://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Alliance-Radical-Islam-American/dp/0895260263
> http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Secret-War-Worldwide-Struggle/dp/0767917855/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1453493219&sr=1-1&keywords=americas+secret+war
> http://www.amazon.com/The-Next-100-Years-Forecast/dp/0767923057
Can I suggest you read A World Without Islam by Graham Fuller, former vice-chair of the National Intelligence Council and Station Chief in Kabul for the CIA.
If you haven't heard of him, you may be interested in the work of Peter Kingsley. This book is relevant to your OP.
It needs to be remembered, that until recently, the connotation of the word 'atheist' was synonymous with "godless". Such as, Hitler was "godless", Marx was "godless", the Shinto Japanese were "godless, the Chinese are "godless", liberals are "godless", https://www.amazon.com/Godless-Church-Liberalism-Ann-Coulter/dp/1400054214
Where did the stereotype come from? From propaganda, of course.
I recommend you get the used paperback of this - you can get it for $6 shipped. Or you can get ones w/o illustrations for $4 shipped. Or you can probably find it at your library.
https://www.amazon.com/Illustrated-Worlds-Religions-Wisdom-Traditions/dp/0060674407
Thanks! I'll give them a try. I also recommend:
Dancing Naked In A Mind Field - Kary Mullis
The Mayan Factor - Jose Arguelles
Uriel's Machine - Christopher Knight & Robert Lomas
https://skepticalteacher.wordpress.com/2013/05/29/the-self-correcting-nature-of-science/
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/science_is_self-correcting_..._sort_of (comment #3)
http://thevermilion.com/2014/09/science-is-self-correcting/
https://uncommondescent.com/ethics/i-keep-having-to-remind-myself-that-science-is-self-correcting/ (comment #10)
http://spaz.ca/aaron/school/science.html (paragraph 4&5)
Leiter, Brian. Why tolerate religion? Princeton, NJ: Princeton U Press, 2013. Print. (pg40, use preview)
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Tolerate-Religion-Brian-Leiter/dp/0691153612
You're right, I imagined it.
>The argument over religious accommodations is not about whether religious people should receive any accommodation or none, it's about what level of accommodation is reasonable.
No, the 'any accommodation or none' debate is a perfectly legitimate debate. Hell, there's a pretty prominent book engaging that debate that just came out: it argues for the 'no accommodation' position.
> One of the dumbest comments I have ever read.
You just lack the context and sources so you speak from ignorance. Here, let's do some homework. The million woman March, a primarily anti-drumpfers SJW leftist group was headed by Muslim Linda Sarsour who has ties to radical Islamic groups:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/linda-sarsour-speaks-at-the-womens-march-on-washington_n_58869efee4b077cae730414f
Ties to radical group Muslim Brotherhood:
https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Al-Arabiya-slams-Linda-Sarsour-as-Muslim-Brotherhood-ally-573859
I have about.100 more links to prove this is true, but they're all on my home computer and I'm at work. In the mean time, read this book breaking down how my original point is 100% legit:
https://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Alliance-Radical-Islam-American/dp/0895260263
Dont forget under Obama, 70k-100k Somalis brought in to U.S. and mostly dropped off in Minnesota. Some of the most radical Islamic groups have come from this country and has led to the state having an Anti-Semite Senator who also has ties to radical groups and is a Democrat
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/273538/terrorist-caucus-house-david-horowitz
I don't care for Chump as potus, but I do agree with limiting all immigration from radical Islamic countries. When the Dems get back into power, they will reopen the Obama floodgates on letting them in and letting Radicalism to continue to spread in areas where Muslims isolate themselves in the U.S. in their own communities