There have been a considerable amount of violent protests around the world in the past week or so. So, what to do?

It is wise to think about whether your actions are rewarding or punishing actions. For example, if laws were successfully passed in Western countries that restricted free speech against the Quran or Mohammad as a result of the violent protests -- the message this sends is: one can get what they want if he resorts to violence to get it. This is exactly the opposite of the kind of behavior we'd like to promote.

In general terms, the problem is, as I see it: in response to a perceived insult to an inanimate object or idea, some people are prone to have a violent reaction against their fellow (innocent) humans. This subpopulation is attempting to hold the rest of humanity hostage to their insanity.

The question: how does one deal with this problem?

One of the first guidelines of interacting with people with whom you disagree is to start with taking them at their word for what they believe and why they believe it. It may come out later that they might be mistaken (or lying) about both what they believe, but it's a logical starting point.

So, let's take these protestors at their word, and think about saying something like this to them:

I completely believe you. Further, I believe that you think that insulting Mohammad is terrible and horrible and it causes you a significant amount of grief to even contemplate. This upsets you to the point that you simply cannot restrain yourself from acting in a way that will physically harm and even kill your fellow human beings.

Assuming this is roughly what's being claimed, this gives the rest of us a significant source of leverage; the strategy implications here are ridiculously easy to take advantage of. These protestors have self-identified a fundamental weakness to offensive words/images/ideas. Great! I'll never run out of ammo! I won't even have to reload.

Here's an idea that takes these ideas to what I perceive to be their logical conclusions. Why don't we simply hold the Quran hostage?

The basic idea: every time there's a confirmed story like this: 16 or 4 or 13, where N people are killed: have a prescribed, automatic, and guaranteed response. It's important that it's simply the total number of people killed, as each life loss counts whether the person shares the offended one's belief or not. Have an automated (think ifttt.com style) process with the following recipe:

• A video camera begins recording a single uncut video.
• A printer prints a message out: "[N] people were killed on [date]. In response this, [N] new pages of freshly printed out pages from [sacred text] will be printed and shredded. Future violence will be met with the same response. The goal of this project is not to offend, but to provide a reason to stop killing people beyond simple respect of human life."
• Then, the printer prints out [N] random pages from the [sacred text] which we watch go directly into a paper shredder.
• The new video w/ time-date stamp and link to the news story that prompted it gets posted to many different places (youtube, vimeo, liveleak, tweet it, and whatever).

If the destruction of the pages is really such a horrible thing to contemplate, then we have something of value to hold hostage. The key point is to make this setup as morally asymmetric as possible. We want to make it seem as absolutely crazy as possible to equate the two actions, so the following would help:

1. Make it 100% clinical and unemotional -- This isn't a thing where the pages are desecrated and stomped on and lit on fire. No. This is an automated process which should highlight the absolute absurdity of this situation. Imagine the absurdity of a person trying to plead with the 'auto-defilers': "please stop shredding these pages! people are dying!"
2. Make it 100% equal opportunity. Set it up in an open source way so that any group can use it -- publish the plans on the internet and have the default set include the Quran, the Bible, On the Origin of Species, the US Bill of Rights. I believe that this is a completely fair way to protest anything you want. Neo-nazi's offended about someone making fun of Hitler? Do the same w/ pages from Mein Kampf. Christians doing something sketchy? Print/destroy pages from the Bible. Americans doing something you don't like? Print/destroy pages from the US constitution. People don't even need to wait for murder and death, you could have a trigger that's a much lower bar -- the Belgians voted for a tariff you don't like? Print/destroy the Belgian flag... or something (I might be stretching on that last one).
3. Print/shred only copies of 100% respectful pages; or 100% respectful images of Mohammad; or whatever else. You want the moral high ground, no need to stoop to doing something even remotely objectionable. Be as pure as virgin snowfall and people won't have anything to hang on you.

By the way: if I'm ever killed by a religious extremist for offending his/her religious sensibilities/ideas, I'd like this kind of a thing to be setup in my name. Hell, think if people around the world started making auto-defilers part of their will in the case of being killed by an extremist. Every single insane over-reaction would automatically generate a self-correcting response. The only way to stop this auto-desecration massacre is to stop killing people when you are offended. Seriously, we'd run out of people before we ran out of paper.

If you don't think this would work -- this has only one of two eventualities: an increasing spasm of violence that eventually kills everyone in the world OR a response that's essentially, "yes, the pages of the Quran were torn again today, what's new some people are assholes."

We want the second response, by the way.

Related articles

• Australia: Islamic Protest Sparks Violence In Central Sydney, 'Behead All Those Who Insult The Prophet'
• Muslim Protesters Clash With Police In Sydney As Obama Grapples With Middle East Unrest
• Lebanon protesters burn US, Israeli flags (PHOTOS)

Image by Dunechaser via Flickr

The Huffington Post recently posted An Open Letter to the Atheist Community by Rabbi Adam Jacobs.

The reason behind his letter is "so that we can understand each other better and possibly "walk back" some of the clamorous dialogue." Sounds reasonable enough -- let's see where this goes. I'll be quoting from his letter throughout this blog post.

The first point I'd like to explore is that there really are no true atheists. It seems to me that in order to claim with certainty that there is no God you would have to have knowledge of the totality of the universe...

This has to be one of the most boring arguments that will not die. My default position is "skeptical" -- and the whole infinite list of hypothetical creatures starts in the "skeptical" column. A creature only gets into the "I have some belief that this creature exists" column via evidence. Guess what, God, Zeus, leprechauns, and unicorns haven't made it out of the "skeptical" column.

You may want to counter that you have many well-regarded and brilliant personalities who have provided more than sufficient evidence to knock theism back to the Bronze Age where it belongs.

I would be tempted to ask for some way of distinguishing your belief in Yahweh from the false belief that Zeus-followers had thousands of years ago. Both you and an ancient pagan believes in some specifics about the supernatural -- and as far as I can tell, you are on equal footing. What have you discovered about Zeus -- or about Yahweh -- that help me to not mistakenly categorizing things that are not alike?

Yet, many of you seem to have a big axe to grind, and I only recently realized why. You believe that we are ruining the world and stunting its progress. You will point out all of the violence carried out in religion's name. We will point out that equally severe evils have been perpetrated by secularists such as Hitler, Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot.

You've got it partly right. Yes, faith-based religions are a scourge on this earth -- and irrational beliefs and superstitions lead to all kinds of unnecessary suffering. The violence and other ill effects are truly the symptoms of the underlying disease. It isn't enough to get religious people to accept evolution, the entire enterprise of believing assertions on bad (or no) evidence needs to be dismantled and ridiculed.

Also, citing Stalin and company doesn't help your case or hurt our case in the slightest. That'd be like arguing against a cure for cancer because "people also die from heart disease" -- if it's a cure for something terrible and wrong, the fact that it doesn't address heart disease is irrelevant. Does religion cause unnecessary suffering on a massive scale? Yes, and I'm trying to fix that. Pointing out that there are other problems is irrelevant.

You deride us as anti-science, to which we respond that we're really not, but, rather, see scientific proof and inquiry as subject to certain inherent limits.

We arrive at the sentence that got me to write this entry up. The scientific method is more concerned with the limits of what it knows and the implications of its knowledge to a degree unmatched by almost any other human endeavor. To claim that the scientific method has limits is true.

Science encompasses human curiosity and rationality -- its limit is at the boundary of human knowledge.

Contrasting with religion where proclamations are made with no (or pathetic) justification, about subjects which cannot be verified. It's equally important to recognize the limits of revealed religion.

Religion encompasses human fear and irrationality -- its limit is at the boundary of human ignorance.

The faith to which I ascribe has brought substantial light and unique meaning to the world... could you be open to the possibility that religion isn't inherently bad?

This is what's known as a non-sequitur. My fundamental argument is that it's not true, not that it's not useful. It's possible that I could get people to give more to charity if I could convince them that the great unicorn in the sky would reward them if they were more generous. This does nothing to establish the existence of the great unicorn.

...Theists look carefully at the astounding complexity and improbable fine-tuning of our universe and conclude that there's no way that this happened randomly, you then turn around and ask us to accept that it is the result of undetectable organizational forces... Isn't your argument every bit an assertion of faith, rather than knowledge?

1. No one thinks evolution or gravity happens randomly.
2. No one (except your fellow theists) will ask you accept things that are the result of undetectable forces.
3. Tu quoque is a fallacy

Speaking for myself: if you think we should understand each other better (and I do) you have to tell us what you think, and why you think it. You have to understand what we think, and why. Telling us that we aren't really atheists -- or that Stalin was an atheist AND did bad things is simply irrelevant to what we believe and why we believe it. No one is an atheist because they think Stalin was a moral dude -- we're atheists because we see no compelling reason to think that any supernatural gods exist.

We (in aggregate) are very fair. You have to use and demonstrate methods of gaining knowledge that we can verify for ourselves -- and if this is too restrictive, we will dismiss your poorly conceived assertions about the real world just like we dismiss the relentless claims to supernatural knowledge that we are bombarded with daily. Just like you dismiss the heartfelt beliefs of ancient pagans as being any sort of guide to describing reality in any interesting way.

There has been some back-and-forth in the comments of my blog, and I wanted to let the discussion out for a bit more air.

Jason has been arguing that he thinks that Sam Harris fails to make the case for a scientific morality.

I think my criticism is more damaging to Harris' argument than you acknowledge. He defines "the wrong values" as "values which lead toward, rather than away from, the worst possible misery for everyone." He says this is necessary, or else "ought" has no meaning at all. That is the foundation he wants to establish for his scientific morality. It's not enough to just have something everybody agrees is bad: Harris needs to establish a method for analysing all moral conflicts. We could all agree that torturing and killing small children in front of their parents is bad. That does not establish a scientific basis for making moral judgments. -- Comment on Going from Is to Ought

It's a common criticism of Sam's talks and his most recent book, The Moral Landscape.

I think Sam's next move (and mine because I'm sympathetic to his cause), would be to ask by way of analogy whether nutrition, or health, is something that lends itself to the scientific method?

Can science tell us that eating vegetables and exercising is healthier than a sedentary lifestyle with a diet of Twinkies? Is that a scientific question? Can it be addressed with the scientific method? I think the answer to all of those questions is "yes".

Now, to argue by analogy with morality:

Can science tell us that educating children in compassion is more moral than torturing them? Is that a scientific question? Can it be addressed with the scientific method? I also think the answer to each question is "yes".

All that's required for the scientific method to be able to answer the health question is that we can recognize that dying at a young age of obesity-related heart disease is at the "unhealthy" end of the health spectrum.

Ditto for morality. If we can recognize that the worst possible suffering for all conscious creatures is at the "immoral" end of the moral spectrum.

If you think that that recognition is an unscientific move, then can you come up with a scientific endeavor under your definition?

Just to tip my hand about where I'm headed with this argument:

If you want to argue that there is an element of arbitrariness to say that the science of morality is about avoiding "the worst possible suffering for all conscious creatures". I'd argue that it is just as arbitrary to say that the goal of the science of physics is about accurately describing and predicting the states of matter and energy of the universe.

I recently walked through a large hostile crowd that had formed around a small group of Christians holding signs talking about the evils of homosexuality.

The people surrounding the sign-bearers were largely upset about the signs -- probably a number of Christians, and definitely a number of atheists, as well.

The interactions were heated, but not mere screaming -- some actual dialogue was occurring. However, the people I agreed with and wanted to win every interaction often had terrible or irrelevant arguments that they were throwing up against the preachers. I wanted to write about a few of the missteps to hopefully head off these avenues before you trudge down them yourself.

The situation was pretty clear: preachers with signs proclaiming the immorality of homosexuality. Their view is also pretty clear -- homosexual acts are sinful actions -- therefore are immoral -- and should be preached against. (Someone asked if they would support legislation to ban or enact laws against homosexuality and they said no).

Arguments that suck:

"Jesus said to love your neighbor as your self" -- as though this means that a Christian isn't allowed to endeavor to "improve" a person. If a person is engaging in an activity that harms himself or his soul, then a Christian can adhere to the teaching and to try to help the fallen by preaching that homosexuality is a sin. Is it presumptive? Yes. Is it offensive? Yes. Is it coherent? Yes, it is.

"What harm does it do?" -- If their version of Christianity is true, then homosexuality is a sin. What harm does it do? A sinful action should be opposed for the very fact that it's sinful, not necessarily any harm that's done. The reasoning is fairly straightforward and valid -- the key point where the argument fails is in its first premise: their version of Christianity is false.

"How come you don't care about people eating shrimp?" -- Christians ignore swaths of the Old Testament (and parts of the New Testament, for example see Jesus' instructions on how to offer a sacrifice on the altar -- Matthew 5:23-24). There are enough reasons to think that the New Testament is against slavery that this charge is largely irrelevant as well.

"You hate homosexuals." -- Could be true, but 1. irrelevant; 2. I dislike telling people the "real reason" that they do/believe something. Just think of the situation with the tables turned. How compelling is it when a Christian says, "You only reject Jesus because you want to live a sinful lifestyle."

"The Bible isn't against homosexuality." It simply is (although not a major theme). Here's the situation: The Bible, when it cares about homosexuality enough to mention it, considers it immoral. As far as I'm concerned, that's another strike against the Bible.

More useful lines of argument

I would argue along two principle lines of reasoning. The first, Christianity is false. The second, Christianity has a terrible track record of answering the question "What is immoral?" -- think slavery -- and its moral guidelines consequently have to be justified on their own merits.

Let me outline the rough approach to the second line of reasoning. I'll put typical kinds of responses in parentheses.

- Ask what they use to determine what is moral and immoral.

(The Bible).

- Ask, do you believe that owning people as slaves is an immoral?

(Of course).

- Where does the Bible say a single word against slavery?

( What about the following:

Galatians 3:28 (NRSV)

There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

Doesn't that count?)

- You realize that that verse is talking about how, to God, the human divisions we make between ourselves don't matter to Him? God could care less whether you are a Jew or a Greek; whether you are a male or female; and whether you are a slave or not. This verse makes the point that God does not care about these kinds of distinctions -- which is opposite to the point you want to make, which is that God deeply cares that slavery exists and wishes to declare it immoral.

(Slavery was different back then, it wasn't so bad and race wasn't part of it).

- Ok, regarding the Old Testament rules of owning slaves:

Exodus 21:4 (NRSV)

If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s and he shall go out alone.

The master gets to keep the slave's wife and children!

(That's in the Old Testament and... )

- Let me read one passage from the New Testament then:

1 Timothy 6:1-5 (NRSV)

Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. Whoever teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is in accordance with godliness, is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words. From these come envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among those who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.

I'd be wary of getting my morality from a book that can't even figure out that slavery is immoral. As a moral guide, it simply fails. It's possible to pick out a good nugget, but you have to be able to justify it in a way besides the fact that it's in this misguided book.

---------------------------

I think this line of reasoning is, at the very least, better than the arguments I wrote to avoid. Reading that one New Testament Bible aloud is worth doing in practically any argument that involves the Bible and morality. Many Christians have no idea about what the New Testament says about slavery -- and they should be reminded. Let me know any feedback you have -- questions, criticism, or comments!

Image via Wikipedia

The New York Times published an article Nov 12th, The Burning Bush They’ll Buy, but Not ESP or Alien Abduction, by Mark Oppenheimer. It tells the story of a religious studies Professor who wants to increase the scope of religious studies to include all kinds of nonsense. I think he wants to include essentially every topic that's been covered by Penn & Teller's Bullshit show, and include it with mainstream religion.

I fully support his cause.

One of my favorite quotes:

What was almost impossible to find, at this orgy of intellectual curiosities, was discussion of the paranormal: ESP, premonitions, psychic powers, alien abduction and the like. This is a conference concerned with all sorts of supernatural and metaphysical claims. In panels, over coffee and during cocktail-hour quarrels, they talk of Moses at the burning bush, the virgin birth, Muhammad’s journey on a winged horse. So why nothing about, say, mental telepathy?

I think it would be a great idea to put together all manner of squishy thinking into a common category or department.

Here's a first stab at what we could call it:

Department for the Study of Honestly Held Beliefs for which there is, at best, Terrible Evidence

Might think of a shorter name, eventually. I think it would be awesome to have a department that studied religion, superstition, ESP, homeopathy, alien abductions, conspiracy theories, and so on. I also happen to think that there are very good reasons to study both what people fool themselves into believing, and how they do it.

Another added benefit, obviously, is that it begins to properly label all manner of wishful thinking into a common umbrella. Maybe that's a better name:

Department for the Study of Wishful Thinking

It would be interesting to hear a person argue for why believing in the virgin birth of Jesus is not wishful thinking but why believing in leprechauns is. Especially if people who believed in each gave the same reasons for why their beliefs aren't wishful thinking.

I really hope this catches on and becomes a reality.

I remembered reading Sam Harris' argument that led from "is to ought" -- and when I tried to look it up online, I couldn't find it anymore. The link went to a broken page on Sam's website and was hard to find elsewhere. I'm reproducing it here because I think it is interesting and useful. Sam, if you don't want me posting this for some reason, let me know.

Getting from Is to Ought

by Sam Harris

FACT #1: There are behaviors, intentions, cultural practices, etc. which potentially lead to the worst possible misery for everyone. There are also behaviors, intentions, cultural practices, etc. which do not, and which, in fact, lead to states of wellbeing for many sentient creatures, to the degree that wellbeing is possible in this universe.

FACT #2: While it may often be difficult in practice, distinguishing between these two sets is possible in principle.

FACT #3: Our “values” are ways of thinking about this domain of possibilities. If we value liberty, privacy, benevolence, dignity, freedom of expression, honesty, good manners, the right to own property, etc.—we value these things only in so far as we judge them to be part of the second set of factors conducive to (someone’s) wellbeing.

FACT #4: Values, therefore, are (explicit or implicit) judgments about how the universe works and are themselves facts about our universe (i.e. states of the human brain). (Religious values, focusing on God’s will or the law of karma, are no exception: the reason to respect God’s will or the law of karma is to avoid the worst possible misery for many, most, or even all sentient beings).

FACT #5: It is possible to be confused or mistaken about how the universe works. It is, therefore, possible to have the wrong values (i.e. values which lead toward, rather than away from, the worst possible misery for everyone).

FACT #6: Given that the wellbeing of humans and animals must depend on states of the world and on states of their brains, and science represents our most systematic means of understanding these states, science can potentially help us avoid the worst possible misery for everyone.

FACT #7: In so far as our subsidiary values can be in conflict—e.g. individual rights vs. collective security; the right to privacy vs. freedom of expression—it may be possible to decide which priorities will most fully avoid the worst possible misery for many, most, or even all sentient beings. Science, therefore, can in principle (if not always in practice) determine and prioritize our subsidiary values (e.g. should we value “honor”? If so, when and how much?).

FACT #8: One cannot reasonably ask, “But why is the worst possible misery for everyone bad?”—for if the worst possible misery for everyone isn’t bad, the word “bad” has no meaning. (This would be like asking, “But why is a perfect circle round?” The question can be posed, but it expresses only confusion, not an intelligible basis for skeptical doubt.) Likewise, one cannot ask, “But why ought we avoid the worst possible misery for everyone?”—for if the term “ought” has any application at all, it is in urging us away from the worst possible misery for everyone.

FACT #9: One can, therefore, derive “ought” from “is”: for if there is a behavior, intention, cultural practice, etc. that seems likely to produce the worst possible misery for everyone, one ought not adopt it. (All lesser ethical concerns and obligations follow from this).

I just saw an interesting YouTube video posted by TheIowaAtheists and linked to by at least The Friendly Atheist (where I happened to find it).

It was a scripted conversation between two actors: an atheist and a Christian that takes place in a coffee shop.

There are several reasons I'm posting it here. First of all, I think it's decently well made and entertaining. Second, a lot of the commenters on FA's site mentioned that this is what it sounds like when they have arguments and so forth. Third, I think it's pretty representative of many conversations that believers and nonbelievers get into. Finally, I think that I could use this as an example in certain places of what I think could be said differently to change what is said into something more useful.

Here's the video, I post my comments underneath with the corresponding time-stamp from the video:

2:07
Christian: "Prove there is no God."
Atheist: "You can't prove a negative, Bernie. Prove there's no dragons or unicorns..."

I hate the response that "you can't prove a negative", and I hear it all the time. First of all, the statement's false. I think the atheist is much more on track when he says "Prove there are no dragons...", but I'd be making a different point.

In response to "Prove there is no God" or to improve the challenge a bit for their sake, "What evidence do you have that God doesn't exist?"
I'd say something more like, "That's a weird way of going about things, but if that's how you operate, I'll give it a try. Show me how you'd provide evidence against the existence of unicorns, and I'll know what kind of evidence counts to you -- and I'll see if I can muster that kind of evidence against God's existence."

If you think that the theist is making an unreasonable request -- providing evidence for the non-existence of something -- don't tell him or teach him or any other thing. Have him walk into his own request and see how he gets out of it. If he can't, then you're under no obligation to answer it either.

2:20
Christian: "In your mind, if you can't see it, it doesn't exist."

I'd invite him to ask me what I thought, rather than to just assume he knows what and how I think. This is a reciprocal tactic in that I suggest that both sides observe this suggestion. For example, what he said is false for me.

Also, don't say "it can be proven to exist", it's sloppy wording and you'll get in trouble if you talk to someone who's careful. I suggest you stay away from the "prove" word in general.

The discussion about the disappearing egg was headed somewhere interesting, but the atheist never actually made an argument, so it kind of petered out.

3:51
Christian: "Why do you want everyone to be an unbeliever?"

My response: "Because the truth matters to almost everyone. Would you want to know whether what you base your life on is actually correct or not?"

4:00
Atheist: "It's not that I think you're stupid, you naive. "

I don't like the atheist telling the Christian why he believes as he does, "It's what you've been taught since you can remember." Really, I think it's really important to ask:

1. What the person believes, and
2. the most important and compelling reasons he has for holding those beliefs.

If the Christian had said, "The most important reason that I think that Jesus died for my sins is that I was taught it since I was little," then go that route, but not many people would list that as the most compelling reason they believe that it's true. And if they don't think that that reason is why it's true, you're assuming things about what and why they believe in religion, and you're going to make the conversation more difficult for everyone.

5:45
Atheist: "The main difference between you and I is that I think your religion is just as crazy as theirs."

Good! But the very next sentence, besides being a non-sequitur, changes the point into something different, lessens the blow of the previous sentence, and gives the person something much less interesting to respond to.

Atheist: "I mean look at all the people that died in the name of religion."

The responses to that are boring and predictable -- and in general, the consequences of religion are orthogonal to the truth claims of the religion. Stick with the "Why should I think your religion is less crazy than all other religions?" It's a great avenue.

6:00
Christian: "I live my belief, it guides my daily choices."

My response, "What guides your choices, specifically? The Bible?" and then go from there however they respond from that. For example, let's just say they say the Bible gives them guidance on the important moral decisions in their life. I'd say, "I doubt that's true for a number of decisions, I mean, you think that owning people as slaves is immoral, right? Where did you get that moral idea?" Then go down the slavery argument route.

6:15
Atheist: "People, the media, etc..."
I've found is that almost everyone thinks that the media influences "what other people think" -- people almost never say, "well I just believe that because the media told me." Stop assigning the reasons for why a person believes as he does, you'll only work against yourself.

6:54
Atheist: "If you want a government run by religion, why don't you move..."

Terrible, don't say that, it's wrong on many levels.

7:00
Christian: "Well you can't deny everything in the Bible, it is a historical document."

I suggest: "I'll bet that the Bible has all sorts of true facts in it -- from the location of towns, to the fact that some people wore sandals at the time it was written. Do you think that there's a particularly interesting claim that you think is true that I don't?"

Those are my impressions on a few things that stuck out to me. Feel free to disagree with my "improvements" -- but let me know which you have a problem with and why.

Sam Harris wrote an article for The Daily Beast titled, "Obama Backpedals on Mosque".

It's an interesting read, but one passage in particular caught my eye. He writes,

Thus, when Allah commands his followers to slay infidels wherever they find them, until Islam reigns supreme (2:191-193; 4:76; 8:39; 9:123; 47:4; 66:9)—only to emphasize that such violent conquest is obligatory, as unpleasant as that might seem (2:216), and that death in jihad is actually the best thing that can happen to a person, given the rewards that martyrs receive in Paradise (3:140-171; 4:74; 47:5-6)—He means just that. And, being the creator of the universe, his words were meant to guide Muslims for all time.

It wouldn't have been useful to fully quote all of the Koranic references in the article, but I wanted to go through them on my own. Figured you might find it useful as well.

I'll repost Sam's above quote in bold, filling in the references using Yusuf Ali's translation (and a link to the USC copy of the text).

Thus, when Allah commands his followers to slay infidels wherever they find them, until Islam reigns supreme

2:191-193 And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.

4:76 Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan.

8:39 And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.

9:123 O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.

47:4
Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.

66:9
O Prophet! Strive hard against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge (indeed).

only to emphasize that such violent conquest is obligatory, as unpleasant as that might seem

2:216
Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.

and that death in jihad is actually the best thing that can happen to a person, given the rewards that martyrs receive in Paradise

3:140-171
If a wound hath touched you, be sure a similar wound hath touched the others. Such days (of varying fortunes) We give to men and men by turns: that Allah may know those that believe, and that He may take to Himself from your ranks Martyr-witnesses (to Truth). And Allah loveth not those that do wrong.
Allah's object also is to purge those that are true in Faith and to deprive of blessing Those that resist Faith.
Did ye think that ye would enter Heaven without Allah testing those of you who fought hard (In His Cause) and remained steadfast? ... (too long to quote in full, go to the link and read though 171 if you're interested.)

4:74
Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah,- whether he is slain or gets victory - Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value).

47:5-6
Soon will He guide them and improve their condition,
And admit them to the Garden which He has announced for them.

- He means just that. And, being the creator of the universe, his words were meant to guide Muslims for all time.

Sam's conclusion is that "American Muslims should be absolutely free to build a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero, but that the ones who should, probably wouldn't want to." I understand the sentiment entirely. I also think that the government should allow it -- it simply isn't the place of the government to start shutting down legal operations because they are unpopular.

Now that my stance on the legality of the matter is stated, I'd like to flesh out a few of my thoughts that the coverage of this 'mosque at ground zero' has generated. I've heard several interviews in response to the public outcry that the people who think that Islam is dangerous just need to learn about Islam -- essentially that the opposition to Islam stems from ignorance of Islam. While ignorance is certainly a common rationalization to oppose something, it's simply wrong to suggest that it's always the main underlying reason.

In playing to the more liberal side of the political spectrum, the call to learn more about other religion and cultures is a seductive message, too. It gives a liberal, who might know nothing about Islam himself, the sense that he's a cultured and sensitive creature while the yokels who only read their Bibles need to learn a thing or two about multiculturalism.

This thinking ignores the possibility of someone like me who has taken a considerable amount of time to learn about Islam. While not being an expert in religion, I can say with confidence that my concern about Islam was not ameliorated the more I learned, it was heightened. When I finished reading the Koran, for example, I was more disturbed than before I had read it.

I think that there are many reasons to argue against Islam, at its core it is another example of a faith-based system for determining how to live ones life. The general promotion of wishful thinking as a good way of deciding ANY decision of consequence is recipe for trouble. Besides that, there is an unbending adherence to the letter-by-letter word of the creator of the universe which seems particularly hard to keep some small percentage from actually believing it.

The selection of quote from the Koran quoted and cited above should give a clear smattering of examples of ideas that can be argued against because of the ideas themselves and not because of some ignorance of what they say. I hope you found this entry informative and useful.

I've mentioned before that slavery is a problem, and that the books of the major monotheisms don't have a single verse against slavery, anywhere, within them -- (see my article on slavery and the Bible, or my article on slavery and the Koran).

TED.com has a ton of high quality and short-and-to-the-point talks on a wide range of topics -- I recommend the site and the videos. One of the speakers, Kevin Bales, gave a recent TED talk on the problem that modern slavery still holds on the world.

Slavery is still a problem today. The International Labour Organization (A UN specialized agency which seeks the promotion of social justice and internationally recognized human and labor rights) says:

"At least 12.3 million people around the world are trapped in forced labour."

If you engage in religious debates often, you will find that there are a large number of people who think the question of whether slavery is morally wrong is difficult to figure out. They will insist that they (and everyone else) needs to be told the answer by their Holy Book. That fact by itself isn't so strange, but combined with the additional fact that most of those same people seem to have figured out that slavery is morally wrong -- and they hold this position with conviction. If a person thinks that the Bible or Koran needs to be consulted to figure out whether slavery is morally wrong, he wouldn't think that slavery is wrong.

A person who is confronted with the facts above and who are completely wedded to the idea that morality comes from the Word of God, there is quite a bit of cognitive dissonance that he has to work through.

There are a number of common responses a person who is backed up against this wall reaches for -- most recently a person disagreed with me, saying that there were verses in the Bible that spoke directly against the evil institution of slavery. We happened to be in a location where we (and about 5 other people who were participating in the discussion) were going to be for the next hour. So I said, "Ok, you are flat out contradicting what I just claimed: that there isn't a single Bible verse that speaks against slavery, and I said it because I've researched the question and I think that what I just said is completely true -- but I'm 100% willing to be corrected and would be grateful to learn something new today.  Since we're all going to be here for a while, and you have your laptop and a fast internet connection, please take some time to figure out precisely whether I'm wrong or not."

The person brought up two verses for consideration.

1. Everyone is equal in God's eyes and

2. Slave traders are a problem.

Galatians 3:27-28

As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

The parallel structure could not make the point more obvious. If you are baptized into Christ, does God care if you are a Jew or a Greek? No. How about whether you are male or female? God does not care at all. What if you own slaves, or are owned as a slave? God doesn't care. The whole point of these verses is to show that there is no moral difference between different ethnicities, genders, or classes (include master/slave classes). A person who brings up this verse in support of the notion that God has a moral problem with the institution of slavery has brought evidence to the contrary to the table.

What about the slave-traders verse?

1 Timothy 1:9-11

This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave-traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

Here we have a potential anti-slavery bible verse. The condemnation is of slave-traders in particular, which is a weird thing to have a problem with if your target is the owning of people as property as an institution. Turns out, in context this verse is specifically speaking out against people who kidnap non-slaves and sell them into slavery.

I prefer just turning a few pages later in the same letter by the same author to highlight exactly what he thinks of slaves.

1 Timothy 6:1-5 (NRSV)

Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. Whoever teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is in accordance with godliness, is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words. From these come envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among those who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.

No need to go into a detailed argument at all -- speaks for itself fairly well, doesn't it? Treat your masters well -- especially if your masters are Christian. Of all the people to encourage how to treat the other, it's interesting that the slaves are being told to treat the masters well, isn't it?

After about a half hour more of searching the person I was talking to conceded that she couldn't find the verse that she was thinking of -- and Google couldn't find it either.

Slavery just isn't a historical problem. It's a modern problem -- and an example of where getting your moral convictions from the Bible or the Koran would leave you with a gaping whole where your moral outrage is supposed to be.

The BBC reports of a child bride in Yemen bleeding to death.

BBC: Yemen Child Bride "Bleeds to Death"

"A 13-year-old Yemeni girl has died of internal bleeding three days after being married, rights groups say." ... The report comes amid ongoing debate on setting a minimum age for brides in Yemen, where more than a quarter of girls are married before the age of 15.

The story also reports that, "A 2009 law setting the minimum age at 17 was repealed after some lawmakers said it was un-Islamic. A final decision is due this month."

Why is it always reported like this? "Some lawmakers said it was un-Islamic" makes it sound questionable. It is un-Islamic to set a minimum age for a girl to be married... well, one could argue for maybe 6 years old or 9 years old as the minimum, but not older than that. They are right it is un-Islamic -- which gives us another example of why we should oppose Islam.

In Islam, Mohammad’s life is the best example of how to lead a virtuous life. How he lived his life is to be emulated by faithful Muslims. It is blasphemous to suggest that Mohammad’s moral example could be improved upon.

Relevant verse from the Koran:

Surah Al-Ahzab 33:21

Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah.

The Sahih al-Bukhari is the most trusted Sunni collection of Hadiths which records the life of Mohammad. It has passages like the following (the link is to the specific quote in the USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts):

HADITH: Sahih al-Bukari — Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88: Narrated ‘Ursa:

The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with ‘Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

Mohammad consummated his marriage with a nine year old. The consequences of his actions have tragic consequences for people alive today. More than a quarter of girls are married before they are 15...

The situation in Yemen is bad and Islam is directly standing in the way of progress. The law-makers who oppose minimum age laws for marriage do so on sound Islamic reasoning. It does no good to paper over this fact when reporting on the situation. These stories should go in the back of the minds of my fellow non-believers who have to repeatedly argue with their fellow non-believers that it matters what people believe.