Suicide missions are not always religiously motivated, but according to Oxford University sociologist Diego Gambetta, editor of Making Sense of Suicide Missions, when religion is involved, the attackers are always Muslim. Why? The surprising answer is that Muslim suicide bombing has nothing to do with Islam or the Quran (except for two lines). It has a lot to do with sex, or, in this case, the absence of sex.

What distinguishes Islam from other major religions is that it tolerates polygyny. By allowing some men to monopolize all women and altogether excluding many men from reproductive opportunities, polygyny creates shortages of available women. If 50 percent of men have two wives each, then the other 50 percent don’t get any wives at all.

….

The other key ingredient is the promise of 72 virgins waiting in heaven for any martyr in Islam. The prospect of exclusive access to virgins may not be so appealing to anyone who has even one mate on earth, which strict monogamy virtually guarantees. However, the prospect is quite appealing to anyone who faces the bleak reality on earth of being a complete reproductive loser.

Source: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070622-000002.xml

Food for thought!

Had the NYT said that this raises questions that should be examined that would be one thing, but instead of approaching the article like that, they made an indictment and failed to deliver a conviction. Further they didn’t even allow Edwards response to show up until a full 18 or so paragraphs into the story.

But as has been said in other places, the article doesn’t prove anything, it may very well come out that what the article asserts is true, but it should not have stated fact in the way it did without evidence, and that is a hit job.

“. . . The current dominant opinion supporting the war on drugs in general, and our anti-marijuana laws in particular, is reminiscent of the opinion that supported the nationwide ban on alcohol consumption when I was a student.

“While alcoholic beverages are now regarded as ordinary articles of commerce, their use was then condemned with the same moral fervor that now supports the war on drugs. The ensuing change in public opinion occurred much more slowly than the relatively rapid shift in Americans’ views on the Vietnam War, and progressed on a state-by-state basis over a period of many years.

“But just as prohibition in the 1920’s and early 1930’s was secretly questioned by thousands of otherwise law-abiding patrons of bootleggers and speakeasies, today the actions of literally millions of otherwise law-abiding users of marijuana, and of the majority of voters in each of the several States that tolerate medicinal uses of the product, lead me to wonder whether the fear of disapproval by those in the majority is silencing opponents of the war on drugs. Surely our national experience with alcohol should make us wary of dampening speech suggesting —however inarticulately — that it would be better to tax and regulate marijuana than to persevere in a futile effort to ban its use entirely.”

Where, Chief Justice, is the line between speech and political speech? How can any purposefully controversial statement be “plausibly interpreted” as anything other than “comment[ary] on a political or social issue”?

0 and 1. Now what could be so hard about that?
…

Weird enough for government work.
…