ewv: Interesting article. Thank you.

The attempt by the government to ban cryptology has a very old history. In modern times they tried to do it the 1990s and it was successfully beaten back. It has nothing to do with Snowden. They are always looking for more power at the expense of our personal security. You can read the analysis of this battle (and lot more) by security expert Bruce Schneier at http://schneier.com.

Yes, but please break your posts into paragraphs to make them easier to read!

There is a technical fallacy of inclusion equivocating on meaning, but it does not mean 'don't form general concepts' as it was misused above. The concept of religion as including all of them is based on essential characteristics and is a necessary concept for proper thinking. Those who defend one sect or another have an anti-conceptual vested interest in destroying the conceptual ability to see the essential similarity of destructive faith in all of them.

I was generalizing because Dr. Warner seemed to be making an outright justification for the Crusades, as if they were completely okay. I understand what you are saying about belief sets and religion. That makes sense, because a religious view is based on a certain way of thinking. Some atheists still use faith as a fundamental tenant, explicitly and implicitly.
I did not commit a fallacy of inclusion. I was being inclusive of course, of any thought process that is religious or religious-like. Can you see how some people worship science today? Where they cannot accept anything without scientific proof. Science is supposed to be a bastion of secular, reasoning thought, but it too is used religiously.
You said I have to differentiate between principles, which principles? The principles of Christianity and Islam. I see very well the difference between the two. Christianity is a far more peaceful religion than Islam, both in its actual avowed principles and historically. I see that very well. My stance was for reason, not to differentiate and show which religion is better or worse. I was attacking religious thought in general. To defend Christianity as if it did not inspire anything evil is dishonest. I was trying to point that out. I wrote a long comment, I could have extended it to be more clear on the differences between the two religions, but I have to stop somewhere, or else I would write a book.
Generalizations are not bad, given the context. My generalization was not saying that Christianity and Islam are on par with one another, when it comes to evil deeds. I was saying that neither religion is exempt from evil deeds. Atheism is included here. Soviet Russia was atheistic and secular, but it sure did commit a huge atrocity, and the atheism there sure was religious-like. And no matter those dictionary definitions of religion there is still a distinction. Religious thought necessarily follows from all religions, but not all religious thought follows from religion. An atheist that puts faith into nature or evolution, has a thought process that is comparable to religion-based thinking, but his faith in nature is not a religion. A religion must have a God or gods. This is why Buddhism isn't considered a religion. Buddha is not to be worshiped, Buddha is a task for all living beings to become. Everyone is capable of becoming Buddha, supposedly. Buddha isn't a singular, independent being, Buddha is a state of being. But in Christianity and Islam, God or Allah is an independent being that lords over everything in existence, no one can be/become God or Allah. By the way, I am not a Buddhist, I just saw it as a good example for religion versus a religious-seeming-non-religion.
You took my sentence out of context and ascribed it is a "gross fallacy of inclusion". And just looking at that sentence by itself doesn't seem bad at all. The first half could exist on its own and it would still imply the second half. And a "fallacy of inclusion", what does that even mean? I have never heard of such a fallacy. This "fallacy" seems more like an attack on generalization in general, instead of on rash-generalizations. Inclusive thought, generalizations, stereotypes are all legitimate, but they can be illegitimately used. Certain people will fit a stereotype, but to ascribe a stereotype to someone rashly, or without first seeing that the person really fits it would be bad thinking.
If friend A throws bowling balls at me, and friend B throws marbles at me, of course A is doing more damage, but it wouldn't be wrong of me to say that people that throw things at people do harm and are bad. My attack would be on the action of throwing things at people. It wouldn't be a comparison, but I would definitely rather someone throw marbles at me, instead of bowling balls. I would rather live in a world with Christians only, than in a world with Muslims only. But since I live in a world with both, I want to see both stopped, but, of course, I have more urgency for Islam to be stopped.

+1

That's right, get old dino on a technicality..

"We know religion is bad, no matter what happened in the past."

You have to differentiate between principles, however. This statement as it is presented is a gross fallacy of inclusion, especially when according to several dictionaries, any belief set - even atheism - is a religion.

I agree with you that anyone who objectively examines the tenets of Islam finds principles which disagree violently (no pun intended) with the principles of freedom of thought. But let us be very clear when we speak about such that we identify the actual principles at play and resist the urge to generalize.

I thought they were the ones "servicing" him...

I saw that interview too. Preimert1, it always starts that way, the government tells us that they need to have access to our private lives to be able to get to the bad guys (most often a scare tactic). Once they have a mandate to breech that constitutional limitation -they never repeal the act.

It is certainly a fine line to tread (rights and privacy) to get more bang (safety and results) for further relinquishing of our freedom. In my opinion, giving further access to our private lives to the government is a NO. Let them WORK and THINK for a change and beef up foreign intel, create a better network of interchange with our allies and instead of asking more concessions from its citizens, let them begin to overtly watch the enemy's people by surveilling mosques and meeting places. Why not begin there? What is this political correctness as evidenced by New York's Mayor stopping any "spying" (a cut to the point) on Islamic activities there? Why do we have to have the government come straight through our front door to crawl through a window of some suspected jihadist? Just go straight to the point and impose these inconveniences on those that specifically represent the problem- Muslim/Islamist (non separable). Yes, this would have to include the innocent to get to the guilty but it strikes straight at the heart of the matter with a precise target -Islam. AND, if the Muslims/Islamist here in the US don't like it then maybe, just maybe, they will finally stand up and declare their position against jihad and unanimously denounce and ostracize their jihadist brothers!

Now you are on the right road!

Yes, of course, I agree with you. What I said was not clear enough, I see that now. I started with the metaphysical fact that everyone is an individual, but ethically, many people, are not individuals.
I did not extend the idea individual far enough when I wrote that comment. I see my mistake now.
Since human action can only be ascribed to individual actors, the ultimate choice still comes down to the individual, this is why we can still find people guilty of something, even if they were coerced or manipulated into doing so or followed someone else's thought instead of their own.
I was trying to use the Aristotelian idea of 'is and ought'. Because people are individuals, they ought to act as individuals.
Some people will not independently make a choice. These people, if alone on a deserted island would perish quickly without anyone to help them. They will perish because they will not know how to act against the contradiction they accepted.
I should have said, "No matter how collectivist ..... metaphysically they are still individuals." They will be individual people, but not individual thinkers.

Hi Tredgo: I appreciate the effort you applied in your commentary. I have re-read it several times. There are some statements that, in my opinion, tend to contradict. Yes, we are distinctly separate individuals but that does not determine that we think independently of our on volition.

To add some context to this I would offer a quote from Rand: "Whoever preserves a single thought uncorrupted by any concession to the will of others, whoever brings into reality a matchstick or a patch of garden made in the image of his thought- he, and to that extent, is a man, and that extent is the sole measure of his virtue."

Hello MichaelA: Yes, more often than not it is about economics.
Wars change, the people change, the reasons change but the words to describe the dead never change...

An excellent summation Herb.
I might add to your comment, that once you take the word "religion" out of Islam -you would have nothing.

I didn't learn these things until the last few years, I was taught the same garbage as everyone else. Progressives revised all history as they saw fit. Won't even acknowledge our first Black American President back in 1781-John Hanson. He was a good man. Not at all like bobo...

Right, now you go tell that to an African American. Talk about not knowing your history, or refusing to recognize it...

Excellent comment. You have to appreciate old Churchill, he had some zingers!

Unfortunately true!

Yes, Jlc, after the predication of violence, the subjugation of women under Islam reveals, in my opinion, the archaic structure of a religion that is fundamentally infantile and thus "acts out" emotionally with violence as its common denominator.

Why not? the first slave owners Where the Africans; then they sold them to everyone that wanted them. (they were the trouble makers). [turns out they were better people than the chief's of their own tribes] (things never change).
Even in Colonial America, the first legal, ( under king george) slave owner was a black American. He argued that he should be able to keep his indentured servant for ever.