BULLSHIT Rabbi... The government shoudent have any right over my ears or someones mouth.. if i want to hear someone talking straight up lies, THATS MY FUCKING RIGHT! And thats what the market of ideas is all about.. Just because the guy is selling his ideas, it dosent mean u have the right to censour it... Fuck sensativity protection, if you dont want to hear, change the channel, its not that dificult..
That is because objectively it is. Its not even a religion it mirriors more of a political ideology that resembles more like fascism rather than anything else, and no before you say it, im not a jew or a christian, I am an atheist. And really the whole ida of religion itself is utterly ridiculous.
In essence, you believe in liberty, or at least that's what your comment would suggest. The Rabbi appears to not, although he might be unaware of the implications of his words.
Mohammed Elmasry probably whacks-off to kiddie porn. They've busted so many terrorists and little boy pics on their computers; people like Elmasry, Sohawarty and Hindy probably all have pederastic tendancies, like their Taliban friends. These Salafi misogynists think women are yucky, preferring to fondle guns and each other's hairy Swords of Allah, rather than having anything to do with vaginas. They kill mano-a-mano homosexuals, but pay little boys for sodomy. Maybe he has a NAMBLA membership?
actually it's not blasphemy to speak bad about Israel and plenty of people hold rallies against them so I don't know what you're talking about. But the more intelligent people who know what's going on and have not become sheep of propaganda support Israel since it is the only modernized and democratic country in the Middle East.
Cuz "christians" believe that jesus can't come back until their was a state of Israel and another temple. It's superstious crap. Self fufilling prophecy, so they can use fear to exploit the only thing that really seperates you from an animal. Reason.
Twice Mohammed dreamt of a little girl, the 6 year old pretty daughter of his best friend Abu. She was wrapped in a silk cloth. He uncovered the silk cloth to see more of her.
The religious claim of unchanging laws is clearly disproven by even a quick glance at human history. Laws exist today, supported by "Christians", who would have been stoned to death or burned by "Christians" in another age, or even another country (ie modern Africa).
People use morality and ethics to judge religion, NOT the other way around: and this is demonstrated easily by how religionists quietly ignore or rationalise away the parts of their religions they disaree with.
seathanaich sed "The religious claim of unchanging laws"
Pompous, secular gassbag, there is a change in law between the Old & New Testaments. There goes the corner of your soapbox, prolix pontificator! DOH!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh, how convenient. However, the fictional Jesus character says that the old laws still apply. It is only now, that religionists want to distance themselves from Yahweh and his complete immorality, that this compartmenatisation occurs.
Gassbag indeed. When reality conflicts with dogma, the religious choose dogma. Only the servile think that "secular" is an insult. The only other choice is theocracy. Apparently you'd rather side with Iran et al than evil "secular" Sweden or Japan. Good call.
What a retarded claim. Of course they didn't. Morality and laws come from the social interatcion of humans. That is why different societies have different laws. That is why people are constantly debating them. That is why they change over time.
The religious claim of unchanging laws is clearly disproven by even a quick glance at human history. Laws exist today, supported by "Christians", who
seathanaich "Morality and laws came from religion"? -- What a retarded claim. Of course they didn't. Morality and laws come from the social interatcion of humans.
You have to be one of the most bombastic bloggists in the history of YouTube. Do you ever back up your claims with actual facts? For instance, PLEASE SHOW where law predates religion!
Also, your idea that one can show law coming from "human interactions" that somehow exclude any religious ties is beyond imbecility. Read some history.
Which religion? The law and morality of ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and China predate the three-headed monotheism of Judaism, Christianity and Islam by 1000s of years.
Mesopotamian codes evolved from earlier human interaction, going back 100,000s of years to cave men. Read an anthropology text.
Your "read some history" advice is some you should take, and then you wouldn't be asking me such basic questions. By "history" I mean something other than your Sunday school indoctrination.
People don't use the "cover of religion" to preach hate (6:30 ish), they are merely following what their religion tells them to do. All you need to do to discover the intolerance and hatred of religions is to read their own marketing material - the Bible (Buy Bull?) or Koran.
People aren't using religion as a means of hate: religion IS hate. Hate of the other, hate of those outside the tribe. This is only natural, since it was invented to rally the tribe against external threats.
Things that illegal should be illegal. Things that are "immoral" should NOT be illegal. By whose definition are things "immoral"? Elderly, sexually repressed men who want to control others? Muslim terrorists?
Of course this religious leader wants to tell others what to do. The purpose of religion is to control others.
But using the term "moral" when having a debate legitimises the opinions of religious bigots, who sanctify their own personal opinions as those of a god.
Hi Emart. I phrased that badly. We arrive at what is illegal through debate. When people start saying "morality", it's usually 'code' for them sanctifying their own (religious) opinions as coming from an imaginary god. I distrust the word "morality", because of its arbitrary religious overtones. Many enjoyable things are labelled "immoral" by religionists. If we used the word 'ethics' instead, then we probably both agree.
"Religion is not necessarily good because it's called 'religion'. If a relgion is good, then it's good." at 7:10
I found it quite difficult to contain myself after hearing these statements. If religious people derive their morality from their religion, then they have no objective basis for determining whether their religion is 'good'. By definition, they are saying everything that their religion says is 'good'. Such circular logic is baffling to observe in otherwise rational individuals.
Everything good that people claim is due to religion (morality, ethics, charity, etc) is, of course, possible without religion (and in most cases, is much easier to arrive at without the resistance and opposition of religion). On the bad side, religion initiates and is the sole cause of lots of wrongs, and intensifies other wrongs. As Christopher Hitchens has pointed out, religion poisons everything.
Paul, I really wish you had addressed Rabbi Kaplan's assertion that "if you are promoting things which are immoral, it should be illegal." That comment in itself has so many implications on individual liberty that I can only fathom that your affinity towards the rabbi caused you hesitate from attacking his statement. I have never seen On The Line but it appears to be focused on head nods rather than any real debate.
The format and duration of the show is such that, essentially, each person is given turns to speak. It is not a format where you are encouraged to interrupt the other person. Usually, there is enough time to make only one or two points before the subject is changed. You can either spend your time explaining that the other person's position is wrong, or you can spend time just stating what you think is right...not both. I usually choose the latter.
That's a good point. I suppose my issue is with the format of the program itself. It brushes on many topics rather than really analyzes them in any deep sense.
Oh well, beggars can't be choosers, it's still good to see stimulating programs like this, even if it leaves me wanting.
I personally think that the Jewish religion is probably the least destructive that I know. Though it is evident in Israel that its lean towards altruism is hurting them still.
But all the partners of my company are Jewish, and they talk about self interest, they love their job, and think making money is a good moral thing.
People actually don't understand them at all, because when they go to a place like Vegas, all the want to do work and have business meetings.
I agree. Of the many religions, I think Judaism is the best. Or, to phrase it otherwise, the Jewish culture seems to be far more rational than other religious based ones.
I'm not knowledgeable enough to know the reasons for this. I hope to do a study of Israel, soon. The topic is very interesting to me.
Same here. I've bought a few books on the issue, but haven't gotten to them yet. It would seem that many Objectivist come from Jewish backgrounds too. Like Peikoff and Yaron both.
Leonard Peikoff talked about this on his radio show. He said that Jews consider themselves to be the "people of the book" whcih means lots of debating and talking about the text in a very intellectual manner so they tend to be more on the intellectual side.
In Judaism, the most highly honored Rabbis are those that have brought up rational interpretations of the Torah, even if they wrre contrary to the popular opinion at the time. Essentially, the most celebrated people within Jewish culture are those that find a way to interpret the holy texts in a way that is consistent with rationality. It is a small step to become an objectivist; all one has to do is reject the requirement to get the Torah to coincide what you independantly determine as rational
That's today, because the zeitgeist has changed. As society has evolved, religionists have cherry-picked the nice bits from their holy books, and ignored the nasty bits (unless they are compound owning polygamist patriarchs in rural Texas, or whiny educated middle-class Al-Queda suicide bombers).
All this illustrates that people use morality and ethics to judge their religion; they clearly DO NOT use religion as the basis for their morality and ethics.
The Jewish gentleman in this video is basically saying that the government should regulate speech so as to prevent people from being offended. This is the same rhetoric that Islamic fundamentalists spout about having a right to not be offended. I would have definitely put that out there because he is being a hypocrite. Great video though Paul!
The problem with legislating morality is _which_ morality do you legislate? Sharia? I certainly would hope not. That is why law should only concern itself to the physical interactions of individuals -- when it comes to anything else, then it should stay out.
You do NOT have the right to force anyone to do anything. But you DO have the right to do something if it does not involve anyone but yourself (including suicide, if you feel that is what you need).
Actually, law is based on morality. In fact, it should be based on the morality of individual rights. And a government's constitution should be based on massive study of what best worked to protect individual rights in history.
So you can't really escape the morality of it.
If you mean "morality" as in religion, then I agree though.
Oh, of course, I completely agree. But usually when people speak of morality, they are talking about religion. Indeed, both the Rabbi and the show-host in the video said just as much. "Morality comes from religion." So, until the culture has changed enough to recognize such a statement for the BS that it is, I suggest we keep the word "morality" out of the low-books.
Most people who are religious can't distinguish between morality and religion. It seems so bizarre to me though, as my first use of the word, "morality," was a secular use. And I've always separated the two.
It's a shame what religion does to the human mind.
356pla 1 year ago
@356pla oh you are soooo right !
Fackzilla 1 year ago
BULLSHIT Rabbi... The government shoudent have any right over my ears or someones mouth.. if i want to hear someone talking straight up lies, THATS MY FUCKING RIGHT! And thats what the market of ideas is all about.. Just because the guy is selling his ideas, it dosent mean u have the right to censour it... Fuck sensativity protection, if you dont want to hear, change the channel, its not that dificult..
Deadleader555 2 years ago
The rabbi just led those two fools into admitting Islam is a violent religion.
scata99 2 years ago
That is because objectively it is. Its not even a religion it mirriors more of a political ideology that resembles more like fascism rather than anything else, and no before you say it, im not a jew or a christian, I am an atheist. And really the whole ida of religion itself is utterly ridiculous.
Vinetia 2 years ago
?
Paul Mckeever is an objectivist. Objectivists always recognize that Islam is a religion of violence
I also don't believe in legislating morality, especially when so many people can't agree on what morality is.
the host said "morality came from religion"
wrong!
Sam26100 2 years ago
It is a violet religion you dumb shit. In the Quran men are allowed to beat their wives. Remember one day Sept 11th. Those were innocent people.
Universal237 2 years ago
I don't believe in legislating morality.
scata99 2 years ago 4
In essence, you believe in liberty, or at least that's what your comment would suggest. The Rabbi appears to not, although he might be unaware of the implications of his words.
JohnAdamCulligan 2 years ago
Dumb american bitch is just a puppet and is saying we should ban differing points of view.
scata99 2 years ago
Comment removed
scata99 2 years ago
Comment removed
scata99 2 years ago
We should hang this guy from a bridge by his testicles like they do in Iran.
MinnowBelcher 2 years ago
Mohammed Elmasry probably whacks-off to kiddie porn. They've busted so many terrorists and little boy pics on their computers; people like Elmasry, Sohawarty and Hindy probably all have pederastic tendancies, like their Taliban friends. These Salafi misogynists think women are yucky, preferring to fondle guns and each other's hairy Swords of Allah, rather than having anything to do with vaginas. They kill mano-a-mano homosexuals, but pay little boys for sodomy. Maybe he has a NAMBLA membership?
acsial 3 years ago 2
Why waste any more time?
Just drop the bomb already and nuke those lunies in Iran.
There is no room for other cultures and religions in the vision of Islam today
daddyil 3 years ago
I have an idea, why don't they should pool people like yourself in a village and nuke the village.
That would be excellent.
guitarguy1381 2 years ago
Comment removed
scata99 3 years ago
actually it's not blasphemy to speak bad about Israel and plenty of people hold rallies against them so I don't know what you're talking about. But the more intelligent people who know what's going on and have not become sheep of propaganda support Israel since it is the only modernized and democratic country in the Middle East.
NoamTube 3 years ago
Cuz "christians" believe that jesus can't come back until their was a state of Israel and another temple. It's superstious crap. Self fufilling prophecy, so they can use fear to exploit the only thing that really seperates you from an animal. Reason.
InFromTheVoid 3 years ago
AROUSED BY DREAMS OF LITTLE GIRLS
Twice Mohammed dreamt of a little girl, the 6 year old pretty daughter of his best friend Abu. She was wrapped in a silk cloth. He uncovered the silk cloth to see more of her.
Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 15:
kamajiboy 2 years ago
The religious claim of unchanging laws is clearly disproven by even a quick glance at human history. Laws exist today, supported by "Christians", who would have been stoned to death or burned by "Christians" in another age, or even another country (ie modern Africa).
People use morality and ethics to judge religion, NOT the other way around: and this is demonstrated easily by how religionists quietly ignore or rationalise away the parts of their religions they disaree with.
seathanaich 3 years ago
seathanaich sed "The religious claim of unchanging laws"
Pompous, secular gassbag, there is a change in law between the Old & New Testaments. There goes the corner of your soapbox, prolix pontificator! DOH!!!!!!!!!!!!
NoBlowBama 3 years ago
Oh, how convenient. However, the fictional Jesus character says that the old laws still apply. It is only now, that religionists want to distance themselves from Yahweh and his complete immorality, that this compartmenatisation occurs.
Gassbag indeed. When reality conflicts with dogma, the religious choose dogma. Only the servile think that "secular" is an insult. The only other choice is theocracy. Apparently you'd rather side with Iran et al than evil "secular" Sweden or Japan. Good call.
seathanaich 3 years ago
"Morality and laws came from religion"?
What a retarded claim. Of course they didn't. Morality and laws come from the social interatcion of humans. That is why different societies have different laws. That is why people are constantly debating them. That is why they change over time.
The religious claim of unchanging laws is clearly disproven by even a quick glance at human history. Laws exist today, supported by "Christians", who
seathanaich 3 years ago
seathanaich "Morality and laws came from religion"? -- What a retarded claim. Of course they didn't. Morality and laws come from the social interatcion of humans.
You have to be one of the most bombastic bloggists in the history of YouTube. Do you ever back up your claims with actual facts? For instance, PLEASE SHOW where law predates religion!
Also, your idea that one can show law coming from "human interactions" that somehow exclude any religious ties is beyond imbecility. Read some history.
NoBlowBama 3 years ago
Which religion? The law and morality of ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and China predate the three-headed monotheism of Judaism, Christianity and Islam by 1000s of years.
Mesopotamian codes evolved from earlier human interaction, going back 100,000s of years to cave men. Read an anthropology text.
Your "read some history" advice is some you should take, and then you wouldn't be asking me such basic questions. By "history" I mean something other than your Sunday school indoctrination.
seathanaich 3 years ago
People don't use the "cover of religion" to preach hate (6:30 ish), they are merely following what their religion tells them to do. All you need to do to discover the intolerance and hatred of religions is to read their own marketing material - the Bible (Buy Bull?) or Koran.
People aren't using religion as a means of hate: religion IS hate. Hate of the other, hate of those outside the tribe. This is only natural, since it was invented to rally the tribe against external threats.
seathanaich 3 years ago
No.
Things that illegal should be illegal. Things that are "immoral" should NOT be illegal. By whose definition are things "immoral"? Elderly, sexually repressed men who want to control others? Muslim terrorists?
Of course this religious leader wants to tell others what to do. The purpose of religion is to control others.
But using the term "moral" when having a debate legitimises the opinions of religious bigots, who sanctify their own personal opinions as those of a god.
seathanaich 3 years ago
"Things that illegal should be illegal"
This sounds kind of circular, doesnt it? How does one determine whether or not something should be made legal/illegal in the first place?
"Things that are "immoral" should NOT be illegal."
Certainly they should. Except 'morality' should be based on an objective rationality rather than 'feelings' or tradition.
1emart1 3 years ago
Hi Emart. I phrased that badly. We arrive at what is illegal through debate. When people start saying "morality", it's usually 'code' for them sanctifying their own (religious) opinions as coming from an imaginary god. I distrust the word "morality", because of its arbitrary religious overtones. Many enjoyable things are labelled "immoral" by religionists. If we used the word 'ethics' instead, then we probably both agree.
I agree with your last para.
seathanaich 3 years ago
"Religion is not necessarily good because it's called 'religion'. If a relgion is good, then it's good." at 7:10
I found it quite difficult to contain myself after hearing these statements. If religious people derive their morality from their religion, then they have no objective basis for determining whether their religion is 'good'. By definition, they are saying everything that their religion says is 'good'. Such circular logic is baffling to observe in otherwise rational individuals.
1emart1 3 years ago
Religion is not good, period.
Everything good that people claim is due to religion (morality, ethics, charity, etc) is, of course, possible without religion (and in most cases, is much easier to arrive at without the resistance and opposition of religion). On the bad side, religion initiates and is the sole cause of lots of wrongs, and intensifies other wrongs. As Christopher Hitchens has pointed out, religion poisons everything.
seathanaich 3 years ago
I POO ON MUSLIMS!!! Always. With steam.
andrewbnkjv 3 years ago
MEDIA ARE SICK.
andrewbnkjv 3 years ago
"NEVER AGAIN" in ISRAEL and "NEVER AGAIN" in America. Muslims should be muzzled and forced off the GULF.
andrewbnkjv 3 years ago
IN THE MANUSCRIPTS "Thou SHALT NOT MURDER"
DEFENSE is not murder.
andrewbnkjv 3 years ago
I agree regarding the dictatorial statement from the Rabbi that "promotion of immorality as being illegal" should have been seriously challenged.
His morality may not be my morality, why should I as an individual be restricted by it?
Thou shalt not kill is not a morality. Assisted suicide is!
RebelRadius 3 years ago
Paul, I really wish you had addressed Rabbi Kaplan's assertion that "if you are promoting things which are immoral, it should be illegal." That comment in itself has so many implications on individual liberty that I can only fathom that your affinity towards the rabbi caused you hesitate from attacking his statement. I have never seen On The Line but it appears to be focused on head nods rather than any real debate.
zentonil 3 years ago
The format and duration of the show is such that, essentially, each person is given turns to speak. It is not a format where you are encouraged to interrupt the other person. Usually, there is enough time to make only one or two points before the subject is changed. You can either spend your time explaining that the other person's position is wrong, or you can spend time just stating what you think is right...not both. I usually choose the latter.
PaulMcKeever 3 years ago
That's a good point. I suppose my issue is with the format of the program itself. It brushes on many topics rather than really analyzes them in any deep sense.
Oh well, beggars can't be choosers, it's still good to see stimulating programs like this, even if it leaves me wanting.
zentonil 3 years ago
She looks better with glasses.
fortunatus 3 years ago
I just realized that that guy has a huge neck beard! It's no Henry David Thoreau, of course
horvay 3 years ago
Life is not natural????????
Chrisnoscrub047 3 years ago
I personally think that the Jewish religion is probably the least destructive that I know. Though it is evident in Israel that its lean towards altruism is hurting them still.
But all the partners of my company are Jewish, and they talk about self interest, they love their job, and think making money is a good moral thing.
People actually don't understand them at all, because when they go to a place like Vegas, all the want to do work and have business meetings.
I've seem some bad Jews tho.
horvay 3 years ago
I agree. Of the many religions, I think Judaism is the best. Or, to phrase it otherwise, the Jewish culture seems to be far more rational than other religious based ones.
I'm not knowledgeable enough to know the reasons for this. I hope to do a study of Israel, soon. The topic is very interesting to me.
Sarrisan98 3 years ago
Same here. I've bought a few books on the issue, but haven't gotten to them yet. It would seem that many Objectivist come from Jewish backgrounds too. Like Peikoff and Yaron both.
horvay 3 years ago
Leonard Peikoff talked about this on his radio show. He said that Jews consider themselves to be the "people of the book" whcih means lots of debating and talking about the text in a very intellectual manner so they tend to be more on the intellectual side.
WarVideo 3 years ago
In Judaism, the most highly honored Rabbis are those that have brought up rational interpretations of the Torah, even if they wrre contrary to the popular opinion at the time. Essentially, the most celebrated people within Jewish culture are those that find a way to interpret the holy texts in a way that is consistent with rationality. It is a small step to become an objectivist; all one has to do is reject the requirement to get the Torah to coincide what you independantly determine as rational
1emart1 3 years ago
That's today, because the zeitgeist has changed. As society has evolved, religionists have cherry-picked the nice bits from their holy books, and ignored the nasty bits (unless they are compound owning polygamist patriarchs in rural Texas, or whiny educated middle-class Al-Queda suicide bombers).
All this illustrates that people use morality and ethics to judge their religion; they clearly DO NOT use religion as the basis for their morality and ethics.
seathanaich 3 years ago
The Jewish gentleman in this video is basically saying that the government should regulate speech so as to prevent people from being offended. This is the same rhetoric that Islamic fundamentalists spout about having a right to not be offended. I would have definitely put that out there because he is being a hypocrite. Great video though Paul!
CanadaChris01 3 years ago
The problem with legislating morality is _which_ morality do you legislate? Sharia? I certainly would hope not. That is why law should only concern itself to the physical interactions of individuals -- when it comes to anything else, then it should stay out.
You do NOT have the right to force anyone to do anything. But you DO have the right to do something if it does not involve anyone but yourself (including suicide, if you feel that is what you need).
Sarrisan98 3 years ago
Actually, law is based on morality. In fact, it should be based on the morality of individual rights. And a government's constitution should be based on massive study of what best worked to protect individual rights in history.
So you can't really escape the morality of it.
If you mean "morality" as in religion, then I agree though.
horvay 3 years ago
@ Horvay
Oh, of course, I completely agree. But usually when people speak of morality, they are talking about religion. Indeed, both the Rabbi and the show-host in the video said just as much. "Morality comes from religion." So, until the culture has changed enough to recognize such a statement for the BS that it is, I suggest we keep the word "morality" out of the low-books.
Sarrisan98 3 years ago
Excuse me, "law-books," not "low-books."
Sarrisan98 3 years ago
Yeah. Definately.
Most people who are religious can't distinguish between morality and religion. It seems so bizarre to me though, as my first use of the word, "morality," was a secular use. And I've always separated the two.
It just seems so arbitrary.
horvay 3 years ago