All homosexuals should be stoned to death, says Muslim preacher

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by StrangerInAStrangeLand, Jun 29, 2009.

  1. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    I opened a thread to see if that photo was photoshopped.

    Well, the Supreme Leader and Ayatollah of Iran wrote those in his book (not me) and YOU can go out and buy his book for yourself and read it for yourself. (note: It seems to me that an Ayatollah would know a thing or two more than yourself about what Allah wants?) It should also be noted that SAM's kind of clever and she says Allah is fine with homosexuals. Allah loves Homosexuals. Mohammad was fine with homosexuals. Hell, even Mohammad may have had homosexual relationships with some of his "Companions".

    Lastly, think about this DH. Suppose the photo is real. Suppose you were an Iranian (or in Iran) and this thread had just been picked up buy their secret police. Suppose some militia came and picked you up and put you in prison - insinuating that the Ayatollah committed a sin AND that he deserved death.

    You did write this:this thing is punishable by death in Iran.

    Think about that the next time visit Iran. Because I'm pretty sure the photo is real. The man was a whack-job.

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    One useful approach to the supposed "relativity" of morals can be found in John Rawl's theory of justice, which explains the social contract process.

    Imagine this. You get everybody together in a room to hash out the rules that will govern the society. Proposed rules may include anything, including "All Jews must be exterminated", or "All sadists must be allowed to torture people" or "Gay marriage should be legal", or whatever. The people around the table must agree on which of the rules they want for their society. Then, when they leave the room, all those rules they agreed on will apply.

    Here's the catch: until they leave the room, nobody in the room knows whether in the society he will be Jewish, homosexual, a sadist, or whatever. So, on leaving the room, you might suddenly find that you're a gay Jewish woman, say.

    Now, suppose we put a bunch of people into the room and they are asked to come up with a policy on the treatment of Jews in Germany in 1938, for example. Then, when they leave the room, one person finds that he is Hitler, while another finds that he is a Jew. Suppose you're one of the people in the room. Would you advocate a policy of extermination of the Jews? Remember, when you leave the room, you could well find that you're Jewish.

    Now, the argument is that no group of people in such a room would ever vote to have a policy of extermination of the Jews, or a policy that murder or rape is legal, or whatever. Most likely, they will also decide to legalise gay marriage, just in case they turn out to be gay themselves.

    This method, then, gives us a way to decide which actions are moral and which are not. As an individual in the room, you might well believe that all Jews are scum who ought to be exterminated, but would you vote for such a rule of extermination, knowing that when you left the room you might randomly be assigned as a Jew yourself?

    What would the people in room vote for? Would they approve of a principle that self-defence is morally ok? Remember, once they leave the room they may find that they have killed somebody and are to be tried for murder. Or, they might be the victim. Or they might be a family member of the victim. Or whatever.

    Think of those people in the room again. When they leave, they might be a cleric, or they might be a homosexual. Would they vote for a policy of stoning homosexuals, do you think?

    That's just a form of egoism. It assumes that the aim is not a moral society, but satisfaction of selfish interests. Put your egoists in the room and see what they'd vote for. Would they vote for a socially just society, or an "efficient", fascist one? Bear in mind that they may go out of the room and find themselves a dictator or the poorest worker.

    Would those values justifiable if you put those people in a room and had them come up with policy not knowing their final position in the society? If so, then there may not be a major problem. If not, maybe it's time to rethink those values.

    No no no!

    Government exists only if it is supported by people, but not a government. Particular governments can be corrupt or otherwise imperfect. Take the government of North Korea or Nazi Germany. Do you really think that the people support Kim Jong Il freely and with full knowledge of the relevant facts? If they had been put in a room, would they have voted for a country where money is siphoned off to build expensive palaces for the President, while the people go hungry?

    The problem is that rulers often have a near exclusive monopoly of the use of force. They can use that to oppress their citizens. You cannot assume that the people agree with their leaders. If they are oppressed, they may well not agree.

    Put your people in a room. When they leave, they may be a sadistic torturer or a torture victim. Do you think they are going to vote for a principle that torture is acceptable?

    Really? Put yourself in the room. When you leave, you may find you have Down's syndrome, say. Are you going to vote for the elimination of all foetuses that are diagnosed as having Down's syndrome?

    It depends. If they are free to speak out without fear of being killed or sanctioned in some other way, they should certainly do so. They may be able to change minds. Perhaps they can act in other ways to demonstrate the rightness of their position, too.

    A position that can have no argument made for it is worthless, wouldn't you say? If nobody can give an argument for a moral view, what use is morality at all? And yet, people do think that morality is useful. So, what does that suggest to you?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    “ Originally Posted by Norsefire
    Indeed most pacifists are stupid. ”

    Arrogant assinine assumption.
    Support it or retract it or shut up.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. swarm Registered Senior Member

    As much as I think he is a brutal tyrant, I doubt he is doing anything extrordinary within the context of his culture. Particularly as homophobic as muslims are.

    Not every society is as prudish about kissing as we are.

    Also that it is obviously a propaganda piece makes it doubly suspicious.
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2009
  8. swarm Registered Senior Member

    A rock is a thing. It has mass and discrete existence.

    A discussion is just a pattern. It has no particular discrete existence but is defined by how things are organized and how that organization cause us follically challenged monkeys to behave.
  9. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Would that be a mullahstation?
  10. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    that argument could be made against anything including culture, sociaty, crime ect. that doesnt make it unimportant
  11. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Ah, no man kissing even if they don't "do the act?"

    So allah being gay is a problem? Don't think so? No godess, he sure likes men profits and no straigt god would think 96 virgins is a cool idea. Ha! Refute that!

    What about mohammad being gay? No straight guy is going to marry a 6 year old. He was in the closet and trying to cover up. "No, no! I'm not gay! I have a wife! We play dolls together and dress up in momie's clothes."

    What about Aisha and Sawda being lesbians? Surely that's ok. At least she was smart enough not to remarry. No husband like a dead husband.

    So? "Thing" has a particular meaning.

    Importance is another discussion.

    So is it that they can beat up you that bothers you, or, is it that they can't be bothered to?

    We should test this on norsefire until we are certain.

    I beleive all violence is wrong. I also accept that there are occations when I'm wrong. I just don't choose to be wrong when I have a choice.

    It doesn't even come close to any brand of theism for being a silly notion. Worshiping shy sky fairies, now that is silly.

    Nope. Not in the least. Air, water, food, waste disposal and a modicum of shelter is all survival, even thriving, requires.

    When did you last get beat up by a dandelion?

    Actually it can. For example facial averaging and symmetry are beautiful.

    Anytime an uberman goes all mambie pambie new agie with "nobody is wrong in this thread; we simply disagree" you gotta know the shit is getting deep.

    No, you actually are wrong norsefire.

    I think you are grossly over estimating the reasonableness of fanatics and underestimating the ability of people to think "I won't be the one" even in entirely random selections.

    I could easily see fundies voting to stone gays even at the risk of being gay. That really isn't too far from what Ted Haggard was doing in real life if you add snortting meth while persecuting drugggies and cheating on his wife.

    Some people would and do.

    If you hate downs syndrome sufficiently, you might vote for them to be killed at birth even knowing you would be a downs syndrome baby.

    And people are also capricious.

    I'm sorry but this is not a good example. It is a very shallow look at humanity.

    You might at best get general agrement on some basics but I doubt you'd get full concensus on anything, much like in real life.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 3, 2009
  12. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    I did not say hatred was unjustified, I said it was counterproductive. Justification in this context would be subjective. The inefficiency of hatred is decidedly objective.

    I guess that would make Ghandi one of the silliest people who has ever lived. Strange that he achieved so much.

    It also requires that we cooperate and run away. You have a scientifically inaccurate understanding of behavioural controls.

    Gross ignorance on your part. It is not to difficult to demonstrate the objective biological value of being "good". You think 'good' and 'bad' are arbritary values. (In that regard you are like the theist, except he thinks they are arbritary only in the absence of heavenly guidance.)
  13. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    I don't like this method of moral deliberation although I'll explain why in the next bit

    I disagree; also, even if what you say is true then morality is only a utility, and "righteousness" as you propose becomes meaningless since morals are only good if they are useful to the individual, which is entirely what I was saying in the first place.

    Further, this sort of deliberation leaves society powerless to take action in molding society according to a specific image; it forces us to be tolerant. Although there's nothing wrong with being tolerant, it renders us unable to take radical action for true human change, for instance the Holocaust or human society as conveyed in Brave New World.

    Also if morality is an absolute, then what you are talking about doesn't apply. There are homosexuals that find homosexuality to be a sin, because they view morality as an absolute; therefore if there is true right and true wrong, then people will make decisions even if they fear they might be at the receiving end.

    It is only one method, though, and it renders society powerless

    Yes; after all, who would want to be scum?

    Note: I am not suggesting Jews are scum, I'm only responding to your question from that certain perspective

    As I said, this means morality is only a utility and you are only supporting my point that good is the beneficial.

    Yes, and it obviously is. Why do we work and co operate? In order to pursue our own selfish interests.

    A moral society for the sake of being a moral society is similar to a theist society.

    It depends; they might vote for the former out of a self interest for happiness; they might vote for the latter in the interest of the well being of the collective.

    Actually, happiness and efficiency can both exist, and tolerance is obsolete....under a specific circumstance which I will explain in my "Civilization has nothing to do with freedom or tolerance" thread, if you're interested.

    Indeed but this isn't to say a fascist government must be corrupt or imperfect; this is why I say fascism has the greatest potential: if you have a good leader, which is unrealistic yes, but if you have a good leader that is truly benevolent then fascism becomes the best form of government.

    We only choose democracy out of a desire for a safeguard against corruption, not because it is actually any sort of efficient system.

    Don't compare N. Korea and Nazi Germany. Kim Jong Il doesn't care about the collective; Hitler did, albeit only a specific group of Germans.

    True but in the case of Saudi Arabia I do think they largely agree on the subject of homosexualty, and thus they even create a law for it. Although this isn't the case everywhere; as far as I'm aware there is no law against homosexuality in Syria, the worse you will face is being shunned by the community.

    Also it is precisely because of this, of the monopoly on force, that I suggest libertarianism is the best bet. And yet you don't.

    Don't let emotion blind you in this case; be rational, what practical purpose is served by the existence of such people? What do they contribute?

    Although I genuinly feel sorry for them because this just as easily could've been me, it is precisely because of this reason that we ought not to let people suffer.......although if choice is such a relevant issue for you, then we can make it the choice of the parent.

    Although regardless eugenics seeks to eliminate such things altogether, combined with cloning and genetic engineering, disability, diversity, and unhappiness can be a thing of the past.

    Although the other, larger group will also attempt to demonstrate the rightness of their position. Therefore it only comes down to who can better enforce it.

    I'm not saying that morality is useless, only that it can change, so we shouldn't burden ourselves unnecessarily.

    Although here is a relevant point: even when we are able to agree on what is wrong and what is right.......

    Look at it this way: you and I can both agree that theft is wrong, correct? According to this principle, I find taxation to be wrong as I find it to be a form of theft.

    However, you find that taxation is justified; you aren't necessarily saying theft is ok, though, you just don't find taxation to be theft. You still think theft is wrong, though.

    Similarly, the cleric likely does find murder to be wrong. However, he doesn't view the stoning of homosexuals to be murder.
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2009
  14. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    You want to eliminate diversity? I'm sorry. I thought I was debating with an educated adult. If I realised I was dealing with an uneducated child I would not have been so rude, or scathing. Please accept my apologies.

    May I recommend you study some basic biology for a year or so, then perhaps return to the forum with a new name and a new set of beliefs. It will be embarrassing for you to re-read posts like the last one, but such experiences can help one mature.

    On the plus side the idea that we should wish to supress diversity has made me grin from ear to ear. I assure you I am not really laughing at you. That would be unfair. But really!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  15. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member


    Conn. teens mishear sex screams, beat man

    HARTFORD, Conn. - A 16-year-old girl thought she heard her mother being assaulted by her boyfriend and rounded up some friends who beat him up, only to learn later that the couple actually were having sex, the woman and police said. The girl misinterpreted the woman's amorous screams, and she and four other teens went to the woman's bedroom in the Torrington home on June 6, police Lt. Bruce Whiteley said Thursday.

    One of the teens beat the 25-year-old man with a bat and others punched him, police said. He suffered a black eye and several bruises.

    The girl, two 17-year-old boys and Dilyen Langdeau, 19, of Torrington, were

    1 good example of nonpacifists intelligence.
  16. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Reminds me of a woman who got a call from her daughter with only strange sounds on the other end and called the police who burst in on some energetic S&M. Seems her phone was on the night stand and mom was on speed dial and somebody bumped it.
  17. DiamondHearts Registered Senior Member

    Actually, you cannot provide one shred of evidence to support the absurd notion that any of Iran's supreme leaders have ever agreed with sodomy. On the one hand you are criticizing them for punishing it, while on the other you are claiming the state supports it. Don't speak from two sides of your mouth. The truth is clear for all people to see.

    The photo is indeed photoshoped, unless you can provide who took this photo, where it was published, and what was the date this photo is taken. It's propaganda, I suppose it helps some people sleep at night by justifying their hatred, racist, and prejudiced views of others.

    These things are punishable in Iran, as they are in most countries of Asia. In the past, majority of the Buddhist and Hindu countries in Central Asia and South Asia also punished this act with execution. All religions are opposed to this. Now the obvious conclusion is that these religions which embrace God reject these acts. Therefore it is impossible for such people to follow any religion which believes in God.

    Perversion, the end result of the moral abyss of Atheism. The black hole of all knowledge and civilization.
  18. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member


    Actually, people commonly criticize & punish others while they do the very thing they condemn the others for.
    Your claim of the truth is not clear for all to see.
    Hardly anyone follows their religion 100%.

    This abysmal absurdity is an excellent example of perversion.
  19. swarm Registered Senior Member

  20. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Mix Religion with Power and end up with a bunch of hypocrites.

    Imagine this: Years of deep impacted Quranic study, reading over and over each and every verse of the Qur'an and then, after decades of prayer to Allah the Ayatollah was inspired enough to write this enlightened essay on the human condition:

    A man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village, but selling the meat to a neighbouring village is reasonable.

    and this:

    If a man sodomises the son, brother, or father of his wife after their marriage, the marriage remains valid.

    and this
    During sexual intercourse, if the penis enters a woman's vagina or a man's anus, fully or only as far as the circumcision ring, both partners become impure, even if they have not reached puberty; they must consequently perform ablutions.

    These were written by Islams most holy of Ayatollahs.
  21. DiamondHearts Registered Senior Member

    Ok Michael, provide sources please. I have never read this, and infact there are hadith directly related from the Prophet which directly contradict this point. I suggest you read Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. I would also like to see the link to this in Persian if you can do this. If you claim this if from an Iranian religious leader, it should not be difficult for you.

    You are lying and you know it. If you disagree with me, you are welcome to provide actual SOURCES, with links in English, and preferably in Persian so I can read the original text. Pure conjecture is not a replacement for actual knowledge. You should keep your prejudices to yourself.
  22. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

  23. DiamondHearts Registered Senior Member

    That has nothing to do with what I asked. If you like sharing stories about woman's pains and menstruation, you should do it in another thread.

    The point is that you cannot back it up with evidence, because no such evidence exists. It is all fabricated, and you know that. You are lying, I expect a full apology from you. No more of these dishonest conjecture. It leaves nothing to discussion, and curtails intelligent debate on this forum.

Share This Page