Badges? We dont need no stinkin' Badges!!
 

Sad news today: Iran considering a law that would force non-muslims to wear special badges...this sounds familiar.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...f-546709b1240f

Or Not.

Information from Ex-Patriots isn't that terribly reliable, seeing as they're usually biased by hatred and desperate for publicity anyhow. It was crap before the Iraqi was, and crap here as well.
See also

I find it amusing that the link works, yet the article is missing from there. If it was true, then perhaps we are seeing history repeating itself. Well at least I rest assured that even the Canadian media sucks like the American media.

Sounds like another faultless translation from the Washington Zion-Bagels Institute.

This story is all over the news wires. Time will tell if its true or not. The frightening part is how easily believable the story is given the psychotic nature of the current Iranian leadership. If it turns out to be true will anyone be suprised??

Conservative theocrat he may be, but psychotic, I don't think so.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/14/iran.israel/

Statements like this don't sound nuts to you? This goes beyond just conservative..into more of an insane world view.

Yeah, it's called "Religion".

This is not going to go over well with any nation, especially after all the crap leading from that in WWII, i highly doubt we will let that history repeat itself. >_> anyone want to go swimming in the gulf of Iran?
Although i knew something like this would happen especially in a religious place like Iran i am just worried about the dispute between Israel and Iran getting a little bigger than hoped for, especially with Iran 'mining for nuklear energy' or so they say. Sadly, people do crazy things for reliogion...lets just hope that Iran doesn't do anything it might soon regret...

So you are equating ALL religion with a desire for violent overthrow of other religions and the rewriting of world history? Those damned Tibetan Buddhists and their desire to destroy all non Buddhists!!!!

Just thought I'd mention that I consider "conservative theocrat" and "psychotic" almost synonymous.

As for the topic, well . . . I hate the war in Iraq, but if Iran even dared to do this, I would fully support a pre-emptive strike to destroy them. Way too "Hitler-inspired" for my tastes. Iran was worse than Iraq even before the war in Iraq started.

Buddhism is more of a philosophy then a religion. It's intellectualism outweighs the faith-based beliefs of a dualistic world.

It certainly doesn't have quite the colorful and violent history comparable to the monotheist religions.

Yeah, and let's use nuclear weapons to do it. Any means necessary to stop something so horrible from happening. Right? Isn't that the point? At this particular point you are not considering whether this story is full of shit or not. Just like Iraq's WMD stash.

I'd like to thank Watts for posting almost word-for-word what I would have said after reading the relevant posts. Buddhism is so different from Islam, Christianity and Judaism as to warrant entirely separate consideration. When the word "religion" is used as an umbrella term, it is perhaps wise to consider that the better term would have been "monotheistic religion". To authorise a pre-emptive strike to destroy Iran without substantial further consideration would be to repeat the mistakes of recent history.

That having been said, I find it equally hard to agree with Arainach's post. There are thousands of Christians and Jews, and even moslems in this world who are entirely moderate and inoffensive in their views. It seems to be the case that militant Islamic Fundamentalists represent a significant proportion of the world's moslem population, but they are hardly the basis on which we should judge the whole of it, any more than the Ku Klux Klan and Pat Robertson represent a basis on which to judge Christians.

I'd be more sympathetic to "normal" Christians and Muslims if they ever thought for themselves instead of just voting like Pat Robertson or Bin Laden tell them to.

Why are you being such an asshole, Arainach?

Why don't you quit using sweeping over-generalizations? Really, it's annoying.

I know plenty of Christians, including myself, who are not only capable of thinking for themselves but also actually do think for themselves. Personally, I have watched Pat Robertson once a long time ago, and I don't personally know of to many other Christians that watch him. I'm not Muslim, but I'm sure it's the same thing for them concerning Muslims listening to exremist leaders.

As for this badge craziness, although it does discriminate and all that jazz, this is Iran were talking about. It is a primarily Muslim state run by folks who themselves are Muslim and don't have any sort of checks and balances such as those we have in other democratic nations. Iran can get away with this sort of crap, how is this news?

Have you even read the letter?

The Holocaust line's mistranslated and removed from context. And the continental re-establishment of Israel is grandstanding, pure and simple.

I like how Bush can say he's faith-driven and you're all 'yeah, no worries' but as soon as the same sort of thing's put through a Eurasian lens it's invariably NOW SEE HERE, ADOLF.

I agree with Cal.

He's not psychotic, he's just a religious nutjob, as is Bush.

The snigga's livin' in a theocracy. His religious beliefs are going to inform his policy to some extent.

Is it so much to assume that it's part of the job and role of the office, and not some indoctrination by whichever cleric's hand he gets seen holding?

A quote from the Iranian president

The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews, even more significant than God, religion, and the prophets," he said. "(It) deals very severely with those who deny this myth but does not do anything to those who deny God, religion, and the prophet."

The "myth" of genocide???? And what pray tell has Bush said that rises to this level.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves, shall we, munchkin? You basically just said "This may or may not be true, but it damn well should be!"

You, sir, are the most frightening thing about this article. Because you are the fish that swallowed hook, line, and sinker before ever stopping to consider the ridiculousness of your conclusions.

I don't think its history has anything to do with the presence or lack of intellectualism in its doctrine. It's simply part and parcel of Buddhism to want to reduce suffering in any form.

But you make an interesting distinction, where normally I would see none. I think personal philosophy (or communal philosophy) serves the same purpose as religion, even if the connotations of the general public may differ depending on whether we call it "religion" or not. Anyone that's living their life based on a set of rules or expectations has their own religion.

Bush has said nothing to that level.

Just because they're religious nutjobs doesn't mean they're both anti-semites.

Ahmadinejad isn't calling the Holocaust a myth but calling out those who have exploited it--those responsible for its mythologisation--at the cost of marginalising another group of people in order to further a political agenda.

The story concerning badges is indeed false.
See here and here.

And that would improve things? War is always beyond terrible, especially for civilian population and in that region, there is simply no hope for anything even resembling a democracy as we know it.
Only following types of goverment can exist there:
a) a theocracy (can be stable, but do not expect it to be a human rights champion)
b) an authoritarian state (this type is required if one hopes to establish something resembling a stable, secular state)
c) a state of chaos, with powerful warlords and civil war (the worst possible outcome, is usually created after foreign intervention).

Also, please read the following links. Compared to current situation, Iraq under Hussein was a great place to live in.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...183948,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/19/wo...ewanted=1&_r=1

Plenty of people throughout history have killed or died over their belief system. Few people have killed or died over their ideas, particularly ideas searching about the nature of their existence. There's a clearly defined line in that sense between ideas and beliefs. The same line that divides religion and philosophy. Ideas and philosophy can be changed quite easily. Not necessarily true of religion/beliefs.

It could be argued that Buddhism does have a few religious beliefs (assumptions?) attached to it, namely that life/existence is pain and suffering. Which is brought about by expectations and wants. This is pretty general compared to what most organized religions believe. Believing that one person in history was the son of god and savior of mankind is more clearly defined.

Not many people think so, but I do think that it'd be possible for a person to hold Buddhist/Eastern ideals and yet still adhere to some sort of religous dogma without there being any contradiction. Whether that dogma be New-Age/Paganism/Wiccan, or monothestic beliefs. This requires similar thinking about the nature of philosophy and religion though.

I don't even pay attention to idiots who blame religion for everything. It's a stupid trend with people these days because it makes them feel smart. "Religion is stoooopid! Faith is not scientific and it is illogical!!!" The funny thing is, these people are pretty uneducated in regards to what they're condemning. They'll probably cite something like the Crusades and say how violent religion makes people not knowing that the driving force of the Crusades was politics and not faith. It's best to ignore the ignorance.

Except that the reason religion gets a bad image from things like the crusades is that politics used religion in order to do some bad things. And I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the church's hand in the crusades, I'm hesitant to consider them a duped puppet of politics in such matters.

Religion is *used* to facilitate terrible things such as crusades, jihads, inquisitions, genocides, etc. That's why it gets at least some of the blame. But of course you can just deny that it has anything/much to do with such things, I just don't see how you rationalize it.

Religion is still not the sole source of ill in the world. That's just crazy utopian thinking. It's been tried occasionally....

"Gee, if only there wern't any *BLANK* in the world. Let's kill'em off, only then will the world be in a better state!"

While it doesn't exonerate the Catholic Church, the Popes that carried out, the Byzantine Emperor that laid the seed, the people that carried out the killing people all still shared a semblence of responsibly for their actions. What about the people that didn't participate but just went along with it? Are they not responsible to a certain extent as a decent rational human being for not decrying these actions carried out? To act against them? To undermind them at the very least?

It's human nature to assign blame. By assigning blame you are abdicating any responsibility for your actions or lack therof.

I agree that assigning blame to one thing while ignoring the other factors is false and foolish. But the truth that there were other factors at work to justify the group/factor etc. that one likes doesn't really work in my view. Sure you can know that religion isn't the sole reason for all the ill it's been involved in, but how does that matter? That there is blame to spread around doesn't in any way make an offending party's role any less offensive.

Didn't mean to come across as blaming all these things on religion alone. Just trying to make the point that it doesn't have to be a black and white debate between "It's all religion's fault." and "Religion isn't the only reason, so it's not at fault." There is an obvious middle ground for anyone willing to see it.

I like how the article was proven to be a total lie but people are still debating...

oh my god, are you guys actually debating whether religion is the source of all evil in the world?

Don't you ever get tired of that?

the answer is: any organization of people, no matter where it gains its legitimacy, is possible of evil. As far as evil can be a 'thing', it's a human trait. There, I solved it for you.

It doesn't really matter. It should just put things into perspective.

Look at it from a different prospective. It has to be a very clear black and white situation. There is no middle ground when you're talking about a religion that collectively believes in a dualist world of good and evil. It's an all or nothing proposition. Just maybe not for you.

Did you even read the post that you are referring to?? I said time would tell whether or not the story was true and that because of the nature of the Iranian regime, people find the possibility of such a thing easy to believe. Never indicated whether or not I believed it......Munchkin

The fact of the matter though, is that Ahmadinejad isn't as crazy as everyone thinks he is. He is posturing to gain populist support in the Middle East, and receiving it. He is doing what Nasser and Qadafi tried to do from the sixties to the eighties. He is building on extreme discontent in the region stemming from America's blind support of Israel. No, hes not crazy, in fact, hes brilliant. You have consistently failed to realize that his popularity in the Arab world builds every time he says this, and that, not security guarantees or a nuclear weapon, are the greatest tools he can have to stay in power.

That my friend, is what scares the other governments of the region. He is trying to turn Iran into the leader of the Middle East, and frankly, unless the West realizes how poorly of a job they're doing at stopping him, any posturing to stop him from getting a bomb is pointless, because no matter what happens, the West looses.

If what is going on now continues, any foreign action to deny Iran a bomb forcefully would result in a fury of anti-American sentiment across the Arab world, one that even Iran's traditional foes and other regional powers like Egypt and Saudi Arabia couldn't contain.

No, hes no idiot. He's mounting one of the best foreign policy and populist coup's in the Middle East that is going to result in a great shift of power, and the irony is that, yet again, America and the West is failing to realize what is happening.