Former Pakistani PM Bhutto Killed

[Joe 1]

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Bhutto was killed this morning but a suicide bomber attack. There appears to be a great deal of anger being placed on Musharraf, it should be interesting to see how this plays out in Pakistan. Will this be the final straw for Musharraf?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapc...rif/index.html

[Patrick67 1]

I just heard on the Radio that Musharraf and his party aren't the main suspects. (according to international media)

Some islamistic (terror) orginazation who are against Bhutto's views and democrocy in general were the likely culprits.

[ADAbsolutNDN 0]

I doubt its the final straw...the politics there are twisted to say the least

[gxc999 7]

There were 3 attempts at killing Musharraf in like a year. The whole killing people thing for religious reasons over there is similar to killing people for money here but much worse. Most of the people in Pakistan want an extremist Muslim Government and it looks like they're eventually going to get it.

[Chadd 916]

There were 3 attempts at killing Musharraf in like a year. The whole killing people thing for religious reasons over there is similar to killing people for money here but much worse. Most of the people in Pakistan want an extremist Muslim Government and it looks like they're eventually going to get it.

Most people in Pakistan don't want an extremist fundamental group to take control of the country. A very small group wants to take control of the country and take it back to the 14th century. That group will continue to kill people and attempt to instill terror in those who don't agree with them until they are able to take control. Yet more proof that religion is one of the worst inventions man ever came up with.

[Jason Harris 31]

What's amazing is how the fringe element in nearly any religion can interpolate their teachings as allowing them to kill other humans.

In other words, how can two people read the same book and one decides her calling is to run a homeless shelter, while the second believes he's been given justification to murder the non-agreers?

[GekigangarIII 0]

In other words, how can two people read the same book and one decides her calling is to run a homeless shelter, while the second believes he's been given justification to murder the non-agreers?

Because religion has nothing to do with why they're killing. Murder came long before religion... If religion never existed these people would find some other excuse.

[Jason Harris 31]

For most of the fanatics we're discussing, religion has everything to do with why they are killing. Are you trying to suggest a young, shepherd's son becomes a mass murderer because it's innate to him, versus having it drilled into him for years by his religious teachers? Or a lone sniper would instead become a serial killer, versus shooting at abortion providers because they are committing mortal sin?

It's quite obvious why these people are committing (mass) murders. They're bastardizing the words they read in their religious texts and believe they are following God's/Allah's will. And the majority of them would not commit these murders if they didn't feel they were given authorization.

When religion compels people into missions to provide shelters to the homeless or medicines to the diseased, I applaud it. But when it influences people to effectively commit genocide, I abhor it.

[GekigangarIII 0]

For most of the fanatics we're discussing, religion has everything to do with why they are killing. Are you trying to suggest a young, shepherd's son becomes a mass murderer because it's innate to him, versus having it drilled into him for years by his religious teachers? Or a lone sniper would instead become a serial killer, versus shooting at abortion providers because they are committing mortal sin?

It's quite obvious why these people are committing (mass) murders. They're bastardizing the words they read in their religious texts and believe they are following God's/Allah's will. And the majority of them would not commit these murders if they didn't feel they were given authorization.

When religion compels people into missions to provide shelters to the homeless or medicines to the diseased, I applaud it. But when it influences people to effectively commit genocide, I abhor it.

That's exactly what I'm saying. If it wasn't religion, it would be some other social aspect or ideal they would adopt, twist and contort to their own genocidal agenda. You don't hate what religion does to people, you hate what people do to 'religion'. Blaming religion for what these people do is like blaming a car for a carbomb.

'religion' doesn't compel these people to commit genocide, zealous fruitcake murderers that they choose to follow do.

quick edit: I guess what I'm saying is, some people just suck ass. We can all agree on that one!

[Jason Harris 31]

I understand these zealots are bastardizing religion, but I still maintain the majority of these people would not commit these atrocities without feeling they are "authorized."

Could some people convince others they should ransack a region because it has more resources and it's not fair that others own it? Absolutely, it's occurred throughout history. However, do you think many people could be convinced that it's okay to randomly kill hundreds or thousands of people because they live a different lifestyle? I don't think many people would go along with that. However, when these people believe it's okay to do it because two sentences in a book say God/Allah wants the world cleansed, now there are more volunteers.

There have been too many atrocities committed in the name of religion -- some even by heads of churches (the Vatican, for instance) -- to give the free pass of separating these zealots from their schooling. In other words, for all the good that religions have done throughout history, we have to accept that the zealots are a byproduct of interpreting lessons from their books.

[GekigangarIII 0]

Could some people convince others they should ransack a region because it has more resources and it's not fair that others own it? Absolutely, it's occurred throughout history. However, do you think many people could be convinced that it's okay to randomly kill hundreds or thousands of people because they live a different lifestyle? I don't think many people would go along with that.

See: WWII

It's not that I don't see your arguments. Nobody is going to argue that many atrocities were committed in the name of religion. It's just way too short sighted to say that "religion" is the cause of people behaving this way. Scapegoating genocidal hatred with a religion sticker is a bit much. Correlation does not equal causation and all that....

[gxc999 7]

I agree that some of the people would find other ways to feel authorized to rape, murder etc, but then again, some wouldn't. Religion is a terrible excuse for murder, so is money.

[GekigangarIII 0]

I agree that some of the people would find other ways to feel authorized to rape, murder etc, but then again, some wouldn't. Religion is a terrible excuse for murder, so is money.

Well said. I think we're all on the same page here.. I just hate to see all religion get thrown under a bus when some foaming at the mouth waste of skin kills someone. Emboldening immoral acts through religion is an abomination, no doubt about it.

[ktang 34]

In other words, for all the good that religions have done throughout history, we have to accept that the zealots are a byproduct of interpreting lessons from their books.

For the Christians out there: Satan did quote scripture when debating Jesus. What better way for evil to do its work in this world than by twisting the meaning of religions?

[Jason Harris 31]

But doesn't that essentially excuse the actions of everybody -- the sinner and the church -- because Satan influenced their thoughts?

I understand that scripture is considered the word of God/Allah, but since various sects have chosen specific passages they wanted to include in their books, hasn't that created leeway for followers to commit atrocities that most of us find reprehensible but they feel are justified by their passages? (Genocide, stonings, burnings, torture, gang rapes and polygamy have all been sentenced by church leaders of various religions.)

[ktang 34]

No, I think the lesson from Satan's temptation of Christ is that even the most holy scriptures and ideas can be twisted to evil, and that this should be resisted. So, the masses' flocking to the evil interpretations is not excusable; it is their duty to resist Satan. Otherwise everybody can do whatever they want, and just say that The Devil made them do it.

However, it is hard to do if the masses can't read and depend upon a few literates to interpret their religion for them. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Jason Harris 31]

The problem is there are certain passages from the Bible (and I know from the Koran also, although it's too late to go looking for them) that aren't a question of misinterpretation. They clearly state that God will either kill the non-believers or grants permission for believers to kill non-believers.

Now, you and I both know that no reasonable person would ever follow these passages. However, we also know that thousands upon thousands of people have been killed throughout history by followers quoting these (and other) passages. Not misinterpreting, but quoting.

I only chose three passages, but more exist, as well as some that don't specifically state they condone killing, but could easily be construed to suggest killing is okay. The first quote comes from a website, NoBeliefs, in which the author suggests there have been many versions of the Bible, leading to many interpretations by man against man. The remaining quotes come from the King James Bible.

There has existed over a hundred different versions of the Bible, written in most of the languages of the time including Greek, Hebrew and Latin. Some versions left out certain biblical stories and others contained added stories. The completed versions of the old and new testament probably got finished at around 200-300 C.E. although many disputed the authenticity of some books which later ended up as Apocrypha (uncanonical or of questionable authorship). For example, the book of Ecclesiasticus appears in the Catholic Bible but not in Protestant versions.

"And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel. And the LORD said unto Moses, 'Take all the heads of the people and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.'" (Numbers 25:3-4)

"And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God..." (Deuteronomy 13: 5)

"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;" (Deuteronomy 13: 6)

"Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people." (Deuteronomy 13:8-9)

"Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword." (Deuteronomy 13:15)

"But God shall wound the head of his enemies, and the hairy scalp of such a one as goeth on still in his trespasses. The Lord said, I will bring again from Bashan, I will bring my people again from the depths of the sea: That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs in the same." (Psalms 68:21-23)