patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,233,633 comments by 14,747 users - 1337irr, DhammaStep, The_Deplorable online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 528 - 567 of 2,815 Next » Last » Search these comments
MisdemeanorRebel
2016 Jan 27, 11:29am
Eastern Europeans rank pretty high on non-religious, except for the Winged Hussars and the Lithuanian Wannabe Germans.
Eastern Europeans rank pretty high on non-religious, except for the Winged Hussars and the Lithuanian Wannabe Germans.
Not for long based on their refugee/immigration policies.
NDrLoR
2016 Jan 27, 11:38am
Do you do this out of knee jerk liberal political correctness? Do you do it out of fear? Ignorance?
Are they allowed to choose all three? The theory I've heard is that the left assumes most Muslims are poor, and since poverty trumps every other consideration, they're allowed a pass regardless of their cruelty or ruthlessness.
MisdemeanorRebel
2016 Jan 27, 11:42am
Not for long based on their refugee/immigration policies.
If you look, it's the Eastern Europeans led by Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, etc. that are fighting the Western Neoliberals, who want higher rents and lower wages no matter what the cost.
Dan8267
2016 Jan 27, 12:15pm
Dan - did those nations become "great" after they gave up Christianity? Really? Imagine what Europe would look like today without Christianity.
OK
So then without Christianity, Europe would look like this...
Dan8267
2016 Jan 27, 12:19pm
Jesus is the New Testament. Jesus is God.
Jesus was pro-slavery. He's hardly a moral authority given that he couldn't even correctly answer the easiest moral question, "is slavery ok?".
The fact that you actually think Jesus, a Bronze Age man who no longer exists, is a god and rose from the dead demonstrates how much religion, including Christianity, fucks up a person's mind and makes them lose even a common sense grasp on reality. Do you have any idea how crazy the statement "Jesus rose from the dead" sounds to any sane person? If you said that about other people, you'd get locked up in an asylum. Just because a delusion is socially accepted in a society, does not make it any less of a delusion.
MisdemeanorRebel
2016 Jan 27, 12:40pm
Yep, the material, economic, and cultural life also took a nose-dive.
God sure rewards his followers strangely after the majority begin to believe in him.
In the Dark Ages, Rome had like 20-40,000 people. Think of it! The seat of the Pope, the ancient capital of Europe, a least a tenth of it's former size.
40,000 people is smaller than Waterloo, Iowa - not exactly a bustling metropolis. Naples, the biggest city in the Dark Ages, barely had 40,000 people.
Waterloo, Iowa - aka Gotham. Would be dwarfed by 200AD Alexandria, Athens, Rome, even Bibracte (Arles) or Londinium. Bigger than the biggest medieval cities.
Shaman
2016 Jan 27, 12:40pm
If you look, it's the Eastern Europeans led by Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, etc. that are fighting the Western Neoliberals, who want higher rents and lower wages no matter what the cost.
Wig powder ain't cheap! Gots to keep yo rent hand strong!
Dan8267
2016 Jan 27, 1:11pm
Dan - without Christianity, Europe would look like this.
Bullshit. It is a false dichotomy to state that one must choose between Christianity and Islam. In fact, the existence of Christianity makes a society more susceptible to Islam than an atheistic society. People do convert from Christianity to Islam. No one converts from atheism to Islam. No one who is rational and demands proof will accept supernatural claims based on faith.
Your assertion is a bold-face lie. In reality, the video you posted demonstrates that we as a society should strive to eliminate the poison of faith altogether.
By the way, for 1600 of the 2000 years of Christianity, which is 80% of Christian history, Christians were just as barbaric as Muslims are today. The past 20% has been improved only by weakening Christianity and that false religion's grip on state power and cultural influence. The more Christianity has been weakened, the more peaceful, productive, and happy society has become.
In the past few decades the great waning of Christianity in the United States and western Europe has been accompanied by a great decline in murder, rape, burglaries, various other crime, warfare (although the Christian president Bush did reverse that trend temporarily), abject poverty, racism, sexism, homophobia, other forms of bigotry, and overall ignorance. Meanwhile, the lifespan of human beings has literally doubled as science, once outlawed by Christian law, has replaced faith in all matters.
Although eliminating religion won't solve all problems, it will solve most of the severe problems in the world and mitigate others.
Rin
2016 Jan 27, 1:27pm
Dan, this is the reason why a society needs Christianity or some other "-ism". The stupid people (read: CIC and friends), need to believe that they are saved, if they follow a doctrine, Messiah, or even a cult of bozos like themselves.
But then, the smarter folks, live their lives w/o needing a church to validate their existence. If you remember one of the tenets of Huxley's 'Brave New World', the leader Mustapha Mond made sure that the masses had their bread and circuses, while he got in indulge in the arts and literature, w/o it destabilizing society.
And for the most part, I concur with the above. Ppl are stupid. Think about how many ppl had entered the financial services sector, just to burn their bonuses on cars and houses. What percent of them went into the sciences, arts, or literature, as a result of being free of having to work for a living? And that's the mass of humanity.. fucking losers.
deepcgi
2016 Jan 27, 1:35pm
The atheistic human race will gravitate back toward some other form of all encompassing and unprovable "truth" - like genetic reassignment, quantum Internet, or climate change 2.0. Reject deity but bow down to East Anglia Climate Research. Another day another god. I personally am going back to worshipping the Sun. It makes complete sense scientifically.
But today's Islamic radicals (whom I define as those who would push for Sharia law) need to wake up and smell the 19th Century. Eh...maybe I'm wrong and a good strict Don't-Rape-Strangers Class will clear the whole messy problem up. Those signs with a guy' hand reaching for a girl's butt - with a big black line across it are an excellent start. Don't be surprised if "guns" are used to correct the problem - even over there in liberally enlightened Europe.
Bullshit. It is a false dichotomy to state that one must choose between Christianity and Islam.
Not a false dichotomy. It was history. It is a damn good thing that our Christian ancestors were strong enough in their religion and culture to keep the Islamic mind virus of infecting the West.
In fact, the existence of Christianity makes a society more susceptible to Islam than an atheistic society.
Right - have you been paying attention to what has been happening in Europe lately? The Post-Christian societies can't even be bothered to breed to maintain a sustainable population. No kids, not future. Now they are busy importing primitive Muslims and learning to live with Islam's intolerance and backwardness.
Meanwhile, the lifespan of human beings has literally doubled as science, once outlawed by Christian law, has replaced faith in all matters.
The smug ignorance is staggering.
"Following the Fall of Rome, monasteries and convents remained bastions of scholarship in Western Europe and clergymen were the leading scholars of the age - studying nature, mathematics and the motion of the stars (largely for religious purposes).[citation needed] During the Middle Ages, the Church founded Europe's first universities, producing scholars like Robert Grosseteste, Albert the Great, Roger Bacon and Thomas Aquinas, who helped establish scientific method.[citation needed] During this period, the Church was also a great patron of engineering for the construction of elaborate cathedrals. Since the Renaissance, Catholic scientists have been credited as fathers of a diverse range of scientific fields: Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829) prefigured the theory of evolution with Lamarckism; Friar Gregor Mendel (1822–84) pioneered genetics and Fr Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966) proposed the Big Bang cosmological model.[citation needed] The Jesuits have been particularly active, notably in astronomy. Church patronage of sciences continues through elite institutions like the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and Vatican Observatory."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science
By the way, for 1600 of the 2000 years of Christianity, which is 80% of Christian history, Christians were just as barbaric as Muslims are today.
Nope. Not even close.
The more Christianity has been weakened, the more peaceful, productive, and happy society has become.
Soviet Union being a great example - right? China under Mao? Laos under Pol Pot? North Korea under Kim? Cuba under Castro?
resistance
2016 Jan 27, 1:48pm
Finally, I think it is funny that Liberals/Progressives (what ever you call yourself these days) seem absolutely incapable of criticizing Islam's obvious problems, misogyny, patriarchy, intolerance and bigotry without trying to dump on other religions that have managed to accept pluralism and live peacefully with each other. Do you do this out of knee jerk liberal political correctness? Do you do it out of fear? Ignorance?
this is definitely funny and interesting. is it just the poverty of the immigrants, like P N Dr Lo R suggested?
or the fact that they are ethnic and exotic from the western point of view? could it be that anything at all that is not traditionally western will be glorified by the PC crowd?
why is fundamentalist christianity dumped on so hard for relatively trivial things like not believing in evolution, while at the same time not a word comes from the left about the truly unspeakable horrors committed daily in the name of islam?
the next mass murder of random innocent people by muslims in the name of islam will likely happen today or tomorrow somewhere, probably somewhere america's foreign policy is utterly irrelevant. and again, there will be not a peep of disapproval by the same people who so intensely hate christianity. why exactly is this?
Dan8267
2016 Jan 27, 1:50pm
Dan, this is the reason why a society needs Christianity or some other "-ism". The stupid people (read: CIC and friends), need to believe that they are saved, if they follow a doctrine, Messiah, or even a cult of bozos like themselves.
The solution to that is to prevent stupid people from breeding. Otherwise, you are simply allowing the gene pool to be polluted and making life harder and less safe for future generations. Revolving society around the most stupid of people is never a good idea.
Strong laws and isolating the violent so they cannot reproduce is also effective.
Ppl are stupid
Ah, but why are people stupid? For 10,000+ years stupidity and superstition has been strongly encouraged while atheism and rationalism has been weeded out of the gene pool. It's time to do the opposite.
The atheistic human race will gravitate back toward some other form of all encompassing and unprovable "truth" - like genetic reassignment, quantum Internet, or climate change 2.0.
That is just a retarded statement. People become atheists because they value evidence and proof. And genetics, quantum mechanics, and climate change are provable and proven. Again, only brainwashed idiots deny man-made climate change, and it's no coincidence that 100% of these brainwashed idiots are religious.
Shaman
2016 Jan 27, 1:53pm
Soviet Union being a great example - right? China under Mao? Laos under Pol Pot? North Korea under Kim? Cuba under Castro?
Dan usually resorts to name calling and sexual attacks when these facts are brought up. He's fairly predictable that way.
"There are none so blind as those who refuse to see."
Rin
2016 Jan 27, 1:56pm
Revolving society around the most stupid of people is never a good idea.
Strong laws and isolating the violent so they cannot reproduce is also effective.
Well... we live in a 'No Retard Left Behind' type of culture.
Dan8267
2016 Jan 27, 2:09pm
Bullshit. It is a false dichotomy to state that one must choose between Christianity and Islam.
Not a false dichotomy. It was history
No, it's not history that people must choose either Christianity or Islam.
And atheism and agnosticism are growing exponentially.
It is a damn good thing that our Christian ancestors were strong enough in their religion and culture to keep the Islamic mind virus of infecting the West.
It's a damn bad thing that Christianity held Europe in the Dark Ages for a thousand years. Had rationalism, naturalism, and atheism taken over Europe in 300 A.D., Europe would have had stealth bombers, ICBMs, and nuclear weapons by the time Islam was even invented and Muslims were riding camels and throwing spears. The Middle East would have followed the same path as the Native Americans only quicker.
Meanwhile, the lifespan of human beings has literally doubled as science, once outlawed by Christian law, has replaced faith in all matters.
The smug ignorance is staggering.
Once again, you are caught making blatantly false statements. In contrast, I do not have to make any false statements to support my position.
By the way, for 1600 of the 2000 years of Christianity, which is 80% of Christian history, Christians were just as barbaric as Muslims are today.
Nope. Not even close.
OK, so let's discard 1600 years of history because you say "nope, not even close". That's not how arguments work.
Christians committed torture, rape, enslavement, and genocide throughout their reign. And it's only been three generations since most, but not all, of this shit has stopped. Your denial is simply a lie.
The more Christianity has been weakened, the more peaceful, productive, and happy society has become.
Soviet Union being a great example - right? China under Mao? Laos under Pol Pot? North Korea under Kim? Cuba under Castro?
So, I point out that the United States of America has gotten far better as the power of Christianity has waned, and you have to resort to the false association of the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea as "atheist" states to respond to this fact. Well, that is simply disingenuous. It's time you read my classic thread, Tom Selleck and Charlie Chaplin are the most dangerous despots ever.
Once again, those who support religion have to resort to repeating debunked lies because there is nothing in history to support their ridiculous assertions.
this is definitely funny and interesting. is it just the poverty of the immigrants, like P N Dr Lo R suggested?
I think it is a combination of many things. A big part is Western self-hatred and the belief of the "Noble Savage" taught in our schools. Basically believing Islam wouldn't be so fucked up if Europeans and Americans didn't "meddle" with them. Totally not realizing that Islam has been a retrograde force and aggressor since it's founding and that primitive people weren't that noble in the Middle East, Africa, Asia and North America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage
The other major part is that if they criticize Islam specifically, they MUST concede that Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism (Western Civilization) are superior in many respects and atheist fanatics like Dan can't concede a single inch that these other religious beliefs provided humanity any good at all.
Dan8267
2016 Jan 27, 2:28pm
this is definitely funny and interesting. is it just the poverty of the immigrants, like P N Dr Lo R suggested?
Poverty and income inequality are the two greatest causes of violent crime in the United States because the other major causes of violent crimes have been effectively addressed. However, the crimes committed by the Muslim immigrants is almost certainly not caused by poverty or income inequality, but rather by the culture of violence and selfishness created by unrestrained religious fever. Religion requires faith which is mutually exclusive with rational thought.
Rational thought is an effective means of creating a peaceful, productive, and just society. It may not be obvious why this is as sometimes it is rational to be evil depending on your values, but empirically rational people throughout society and rational societies have been statistically more peaceful and just than irrational ones. The mechanism for this certainly warrants study, but the evidence is so overwhelming that it's obvious.
could it be that anything at all that is not traditionally western will be glorified by the PC crowd?
The PC crowd, i.e. the left, loves to glorify non-Western cultures because they falsely think that doing so makes them look cultured and enlightened. It doesn't. Hollywood will glorify Gandhi and Buddhism even though Gandhi was extremely racist and real Buddhism would be offensive to Hollywood and vice versa.
However, the left are not liberals. As a liberal and as a rationalist, I have no problem saying that western culture is far superior to Middle East culture or eastern Asian culture. The only problem with the west is that our societies have rarely lived up to our ideals, but thankfully that is changing with each decade. The entire history of the United States can be viewed as a barbaric and tyrannical society gradually becoming like the society it likes to pretend it is. So I'm hopeful about the future of western society.
why is fundamentalist christianity dumped on so hard for relatively trivial things like not believing in evolution, while at the same time not a word comes from the left about the truly unspeakable horrors committed daily in the name of islam?
An easy way to tell liberals and the left apart is that a leftist won't criticize Islam and a liberal won't stop criticizing it. Of course, we liberals reserve the right to criticize Christianity, the dominate religion in our society, as well since it's more relevant to our lives and our laws.
the next mass murder of random innocent people by muslims in the name of islam will likely happen today or tomorrow somewhere
The best way to defeat Islam is to defeat all religions by creating a unified western culture of rationalism, naturalism, atheism, and liberalism. Unfortunately, I can't come up with a descent acronym for this. Ideas anyone?
Dan8267
2016 Jan 27, 2:29pm
Well... we live in a 'No Retard Left Behind' type of culture.
Best counterargument ever made against any of my positions.
The best way to defeat Islam is to defeat all religions
It doesn't even dawn on Dan that he shares ISIS' goals of defeating all other religions.
Militant atheists like Dan are ISIS' useful idiots in the West by constantly projecting Islam's dysfunction on millions of peaceful and tolerant Christians, Jews and Hindus. Dan8267 says
Unfortunately, I can't come up with a descent acronym for this. Ideas anyone?
It was called Communism. How did that work out for humanity?
"The state was committed to the destruction of religion,[2][3] and destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed, incarcerated and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with atheistic teachings, and generally promoted atheism as the truth that society should accept.[4][5] The total number of Christian victims of Soviet state atheist policies, has been estimated to range between 12-20 million.[6][7][8]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union
Dan8267
2016 Jan 27, 4:03pm
It doesn't even dawn on Dan that he shares ISIS' goals of defeating all other religions.
I'm well aware of that, which is exactly why the very core of religion, faith itself, must be defeated.
Militant atheists like Dan are ISIS' useful idiots in the West by constantly projecting Islam's dysfunction on millions of peaceful and tolerant Christians, Jews and Hindus
1. How the fuck am I militant?
2. Why should anyone take your opinion of others seriously when you are clearly an idiot yourself?
3. Faith is, by definition, a dysfunction. The belief in spite of reason is mentally dysfunctional.
4. Christianity has a 1600-year history of being extremely evil and a 400-year history of becoming less evil solely because it has become less powerful.
5. Do you believe Jesus is a god who rose from the dead and is all-knowing and all-powerful? Because if you do, then you are clearly insane and have no grasp on reality. And that is why your opinion on any subject matter carries no weight. In comparison to you, someone who thinks he's Napoleon is sane and reasonable.
It was called Communism.
Communism was not rationalism, atheism, naturalism, or liberalism. Nope, not even atheism. Sure, the Soviet Union outlawed religion, but that had nothing to do with Communism. Cuba was and still is Communistic and it is very religious. Once again, mustaches don't make people dictators, you fool. The fact that you are incapable of understanding this simple truth demonstrates how warped your mind is and why no one should ever listen to you.
curious2
2016 Jan 27, 4:06pm
The best way....
Dan, I agree in part: the best argument against Islam is reason, including pointing out objectively that Islam makes cultures worse off than they were before they became infected with it. In contrast, Christian W's global "crusade" made matters worse, especially since he claimed to "respect" Islam and seemed to be working primarily for Bandar Bush.
However, many people feel a need for religion, e.g. the elderly widow who has nothing left but the hope of being eventually reunited with her husband. Calling her stupid for failing to recognize the hopelessness of her situation doesn't really help. At best, one might point out that paying charlatans won't improve her chances, and she should think rather of her family and community.
Another way might be to encourage Muslims to study their own history and consider the religions that worked best for their ancestors.
Regarding Christianity and western Europe, you could really extend your argument further. Much has been written about why Rome fell, but one huge reason was the imposition of Christianity as the official religion. Rome rose as a republic with freedom of religion, continued to prosper as an empire with officially divine emperors, then became Christian, then fell. Neitzsche would say that the conversion to Christianity replaced master morality with slave morality. The consequent weakening of Roman ideals created a power vacuum, allowing both Christianity and Islam to rise. Eventually, Christians dismissed the original deities of Hadrian's Pantheon as "pagan filth" (reminds me of ISIL/Daesh smashing Roman artifacts at Palmyra) and replaced them with Christian saints, and it took 1,000 years for anybody to build a dome surpassing it (Brunelleschi's duomo in Florence, with help from Davinci). Although today's Christians blame irreligion for the western European doormat attitude towards Islam, I think it results more from what Neitzsche would call Christian slave morality, idolizing self-sacrifice. When the Danes enacted legislation saying refugees who could afford to pay for their own housing should do so, other Europeans criticized them for being "selfish", instead of sharing the burden of supporting the Muslims (and thus Islam). Expecting people to sacrifice themselves in service to hostile enemy invaders makes no sense in any other moral system that I have ever seen, except Christianity. Also, Saudi patronage of NATO politicians and military-industrial contractors greases the wheels, shall we say. If Rome had stuck with its various deities and quarrels, or even if Rome had stuck with divine emperors, then it might have continued to rule the west and the period of Islamic conquest might never have happened.
America's founders chose expressly Roman symbols as the model for the new republic, and although they acknowledged their Christian heritage, they stated expressly that the new government should have no religious test of office, and should make no law respecting an establishment of religion - nor restricting the free exercise thereof. ISIL/Daesh have declared war on what they call "Rome", i.e. the west, including us. They use "Rome" as an insult, but I take it as a compliment, because Rome achieved the greatest civilization the world had ever known, and the greatest the world ever saw until the west surpassed it, which took 1,000 years to do.
Our ironic "alliance" with the Saudis reflects shared interests, but not shared values. They aspire to establish an Islamic caliphate. They say quite openly, even on their flag, "there is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet." Their flag literally underlines that assertion with a sword, similar to the ones they use to behead apostates and blasphemers. Yet, for some reason, western leaders blind themselves to the Saudi flag that is literally right in front of them. "Money changes everything:" "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
MisdemeanorRebel
2016 Jan 27, 4:15pm
By the way, for 1600 of the 2000 years of Christianity, which is 80% of Christian history, Christians were just as barbaric as Muslims are today. The past 20% has been improved only by weakening Christianity and that false religion's grip on state power and cultural influence. The more Christianity has been weakened, the more peaceful, productive, and happy society has become.
Just reading about Vasco de Gama. He set fire to a pilgrimage ship after he looted it, with infants and babies on board, in the name of Portugal and the Holy Family.
Pantheon as "pagan filth" (reminds you of ISIL/Daesh smashing Roman artifacts at Palmyra) and replaced them with Christian saints, and it took 1,000 years for anybody to build a dome surpassing it (Bruneleschi's duomo in Florence, with help from Davinci).
Interesting! The Pantheon is still the world's largest unsupported concrete dome, never surpassed. I had thought some train station in Victorian England surpassed it, but it's dome is supported.
Dan8267
2016 Jan 27, 4:17pm
However, many people feel a need for religion, e.g. the elderly widow who has nothing left but the hope of being eventually reunited with her husband.
Religion is like a narcotic or alcohol. Sure it may make you feel better in the short-term, but there are serious consequences to drinking or smoking crack to escape your problems. Although I have sympathy for people who want to delude themselves to avoid psychological pain, religion is not the optimal way of doing this. Smoking weed is just as effective of a false emotional high without all the negative consequences of religion. It would make far more sense to smoke weed or even drink or smoke crack than to engage in religion.
As for the hope of being reunited with loved ones, false hope is not better than no hope. It is better to reach the acceptance stage of grieving than to dwell in denial. The consequences of denial are grave.
12-year-old girl kills herself because of the lie of an afterlife
A 12-year-old girl whose father died, takes her own life in order to see her father again. Of course, she does not get to see her father again because there is no afterlife. Sure, the lie of the afterlife might numb the pain of loss for a child, but if that child actually believes the lie, she might act on it as this poor girl did.
Now, this isn't about blame. It's about not repeating the same mistake. Stop telling children the lie about there being an afterlife. The lie does far more damage than good.
All the false comfort in all of history that the lie of an afterlife offered is outweighed by this one girl's death. The tally is negative for this alone, and I doubt very much that this is the first time in history someone has wasted his or her life because of the afterlife lie. It's just the first indisputable proof we've seen.
Worst still, the negative consequence of religion are not born by the religious alone. The costs are born by all of society and by future generations who are infected with the plague and whose societies and social justice are harmed by religion. For example, we are still bearing the cost of slavery, which in dollars alone, ignoring all the human suffering, outweighs the financial gains of slavery by many orders of magnitude.
Regarding Christianity and western Europe, you could really extend your argument further. Much has been written about why Rome fell, but one huge reason was the imposition of Christianity as the official religion. Rome rose as a republic with freedom of religion, continued to prosper as an empire within officially divine emperors, then became Christian, then fell.
I agree that Christianity contributed to the fall of Rome, and I agree that it was not the only cause as well. Rome was an evil empire. In fact, there has never been an empire in all of human history that has not been evil, including the United States. Empires by their nature are evil. I think Rome would most likely still have fallen without Christianity, but it would have taken longer. By demanding conquest and expansion of the religion, Christianity spurred Rome to overexpand and pay and equip mercenaries, much like the U.S. is doing now. Actually, there are a lot of parallels between the U.S. today and Rome right before the fall.
Dan8267
2016 Jan 27, 4:19pm
Actually, there are a lot of parallels between the U.S. today and Rome right before the fall.
As usual, my best insights are often thought of by others before me.
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/26/8_striking_parallels_between_the_u_s_and_the_roman_empire/
Rin
2016 Jan 27, 4:23pm
the immature folks have to come on Patnet once a week, starting new threads, trying to validate their pathetic existence in life.
Said by a man, who's here daily (and sometimes more than daily), bickering with Dan and others, constantly looking to push his P.O.V onto others. What a hypocrite!
At least I have job.
curious2
2016 Jan 27, 4:24pm
Religion is like a narcotic or alcohol.
It is the opiate of the masses, but if you look at Prohibition and the "War on Drugs," you might consider that you can't save people from themselves.
Rome was
an empire, providing Europeans plenty of clean potable water and consequently better health than they would see again for 1,000 years. Without your health, you have nothing. It had problems too, e.g. asbestos miners were known to suffer the conditions we now call asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma. But really, if you compare Europe before and immediately after the fall of the Roman empire, most people would say the empire was better. Your own chart showing urban populations illustrates the point: most of those people chose to live in Roman cities when they could, then fled reluctantly when the cities fell.
we are still bearing the cost of slavery,
Most of the ongoing "cost" attributed to slavery results largely from the war on drugs, which in practice and by specific intent is a partial repeal of the 13th and 15th Amendments. The drug war was specifically motivated by a desire to incarcerate black Americans (including a particularly bizarre obsession with Billie Holiday). Populations recover from old wounds if allowed to heal. The drug war inflicts, deliberately, repetitive injuries with no chance to recover. Forget about reparations, just end the drug war, and you'll see most of the ongoing "cost" evaporate swiftly.
deepcgi
2016 Jan 27, 5:34pm
I would say the Rule of Law, Democracy and Free Enterprise are still our best hope. But the Rule of Law has to apply to individuals, cities, states, nations, leaders, the wealthy and international banks, no matter how large.
As far as the Rule of Reason is concerned, Quantum Physics research is turning the world on its head. However, it isn't only the religious world that finds itself upside down. It is the scientific world as well. It is most likely telling us that consciousness precedes chemistry - and that the modern scientific foundation of Determinism is incomplete at best.
What the elite should probably fear most is both the transparency AND the secrecy that will come from quantum encryption. It will work. In fact, it already works. And it will be affordable. Oh dear.
Sure, the Soviet Union outlawed religion, but that had nothing to do with Communism.
Huh? Outlawing religion had *NOTHING* to do with Communism? Why on earth do you think the Commies in the Soviet Union went through the great effort and cost to demolish Churches and Synagogues and persecute/murder religious people? The Communists spanning several countries make ISIS look like pikers in terms of the number of Churches and Synagogues (let alone human lives) they destroyed. The Communists didn't want all those "irrational" religious types competing morally or philosophically in the public square with all those "rational sophisticate" atheists ruling us in the government. So they used the awesome power of the State to destroy religious belief.
If there is nothing else that is good about religious influence in America and the West, is to temper and compete with the dangerous ideologue fanatics like you from infesting our government and imposing your rationality or moral on us. The fanatic zeal is really not much different than ISIS.
You are so blind or historically ignorant of this reality that you are even using Karl Marx locutions "Religion is a narcotic". But sure, Communism/Marxism banning and persecuting religious people has NOTHING to do with Communism and militant atheism.
"The Soviet regime had an ostensible commitment to the complete annihilation of religious institutions and ideas.[10] Militant atheism was central to the ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union[11] and a high priority of all Soviet leaders.[3] Convinced atheists were considered to be more virtuous individuals than those of religious belief.[3]
The state established atheism as the only scientific truth.[12][13][14][15][16][17][unreliable source?] Soviet authorities forbade the criticism of atheism or of the state's anti-religious policies; such criticism could lead to forced retirement, arrest and/or imprisonment.[18][19][20]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union
Dan8267
2016 Jan 27, 6:52pm
It is the opiate of the masses, but if you look at Prohibition and the "War on Drugs," you might consider that you can't save people from themselves.
With one big difference. When parents get their 5-year-olds drunk, we arrest them.
an empire, providing Europeans plenty of clean potable water and consequently better health than they would see again for 1,000 years.
But really, if you compare Europe before and immediately after the fall of the Roman empire, most people would say the empire was better.
That's true, but the good the Roman Empire did was not the result of their evil actions (mass murder, rape, torture, slavery). The good came from Roman engineers. The most important Roman was the one who invented concrete. He, she, or (most likely) they were far more important than all the emperors and senators combined.
My point is that the good things accomplished by empires including the Romans are not accomplished by empirical policy and military might, with the sometimes exception of peacekeeping, but by STEM workers, the engineers, mathematicians, and the precursors of scientists who were called natural philosophers. And none of those groups are dependent on empire building.
Most of the ongoing "cost" attributed to slavery results largely from the war on drugs, which in practice and by specific intent is a partial repeal of the 13th and 15th Amendments.
True, but I would add a significant cost in the form of systemic intergenerational poverty requiring spending on social safety nets like public housing, welfare, food programs as well as crime fighting costs and loss of economic opportunity both of which are the consequence of poverty.
Dan8267
2016 Jan 27, 7:00pm
Sure, the Soviet Union outlawed religion, but that had nothing to do with Communism.
Huh? Outlawing religion had *NOTHING* to do with Communism?
That's right. Cuba, as I have stated in my prior post, is Communistic and highly religious. Here are some other examples.
- Mustaches have nothing to do with Nazism.
- The color red is not in itself communistic.
- Being a short French person does not mean one is likely to invade Russia during the winter.
- Wearing spandex does not give one mutant super powers.
Correlation, particularly very rare correlations like sample sets of carnality one, does not imply causality.
I am a hard-core atheist. That does not mean I believe in Communism as a political or economic institution. Nor does it mean that my politics are even remotely like the Soviet Union. There is no relationship between rejecting the existence of fictional gods and establishing a cold war superpower. To imply so is ridiculous and people who do so should be ridiculed.
Again, this was explained in detailed in the thread Tom Selleck and Charlie Chaplin are the most dangerous despots ever.
Stalin was coincidentally an atheist and would have been a fucking asshole even if he were Christian. The motherfuckers in the Inquisition tortured people directly because of their religion. Totally different. To attempt to imply that Communism is evidence that atheism is bad is disingenuous. To attempt to imply that the Spanish Inquisition is evidence that religion is bad is not.
Furthermore, atheists do not follow Stalin, or praise him, or in any way agree with him. Ask any atheist what he thinks of Stalin, and he'll say Stalin was one of the worst people in history and the world is far better off without him.
In contrast, throughout history up to and including today, billions of religious people fervently support the evil advocated by religious leaders.
Like always, you are wrong because you are willfully ignorant. The key word being willfully.
NDrLoR
2016 Jan 27, 8:14pm
I am a hard-core atheist.
You mean there are degrees? Are hard cores the ones who are angry all the time (they all seem to be)? What do you think Madelyn Murray O'Hair was?
MisdemeanorRebel
2016 Jan 27, 8:54pm
Pagan Ancient Rome was incredibly better. It's absolutely irrefutable from Archaeology. A Roman Slave lived better than a well-off Medieval peasant. Even the stables had standardized, mass-produced, tile roofs located a hundred miles up winding hillside roads from where they were made - or a thousand miles away by sea.
Huge watermills built near the farmland, with the water to power them brought in via miles of concrete and iron aqueduct.
There's copper coins all over Hadrian's Wall, at the very extreme point of the Roman Empire, the border with the untamed barbarian North. Humble soldiers and travellers used them to pay for food and lodging, coinage didn't enter everyday ordinary life in Europe again for almost 1000 years.
When a slave tripped and broke amphorae in Britain, imported from Catalonia overseas, nobody gave a shit, they had a ton of them just like it. A few hundred years later, and those very same jugs were buried with Christian Anglo-Saxon Kings as "high status" goods. Stuff that slaves used to keep their food in.
Dan8267
2016 Jan 27, 9:01pm
You mean there are degrees?
Yes.
The belief and disbelief in supernatural entities including gods spans a wide spectrum including the following:
Strong Monotheism - the belief in a particular deity and only that deity
Strong Polytheism - the belief in multiple particular deities
Weak Monotheism - the belief in a single, but largely unknown or unspecified deity
Weak Polytheism - the belief that there are gods, but no particular allegiance
Vague Monotheism - the belief in some kind of creation force, but not necessarily a conscious one or moral authority
God of the Gaps - the belief in some intelligence to fill in the gaps of knowledge
Weak Agnosticism - the belief that we cannot know whether or not there is one or many gods until we die and have proof
Strong Agnosticism - the belief that we cannot ever know if a god exist even if it reveals itself because it's impossible even in principle to prove that oneself is god and not merely really powerful.
Weak Atheism - the disbelief in all gods ever proposed, which is simply taking monotheism one god further
Strong Atheism - the disbelief in all possible gods even ones that have not been proposed
Is that too advance of a concept for you?
Are hard cores the ones who are angry all the time (they all seem to be)?
No. Nor do they seem to be. You are simply trying to make an unfounded ad hominem attack on a group of people you don't like. You are asserting that atheists are angry and thus unlikable and therefore no one should listen to them. This is simply a bigoted lie motivated by a disingenuous political agenda. It's no different than the racist claim that all black men are angry and dangerous, and you should be ashamed of using such an attack.
What do you think Madelyn Murray O'Hair was?
If you are trying to judge all atheists based on your perception of one atheist, that is the very definition of bigotry. It is also extremely stupid.
Would you judge all white people based on Hitler?
If you are trying to argue that O'Hair was advocating bad policy, then grow a pair of balls and outright state which policies you think were bad and why. Do note that I am under no obligation to agree with everything every atheist in history has ever said. That would be impossible anyway.
What O'Hair is most famous for is a legal challenge to the words "Under God" being added to the American Pledge of Allegiance as it was a clear violation of the First Amendment prohibition on the government sponsoring religions, particularly Christian religions. She was 100% correct. This phrase was added in the 1950s as a way of stating that America was morally superior to the Soviet Union because America was Christian. Thus the addition of the phrase was a clear Unconstitutional endorsement of religion by the government and a violation of the religious freedom of all Americans including Christians who are smart enough to realize that they had the right to opt out of their religion.
Of course, the American Pledge of Allegiance, and in fact all pledges of allegiance, is wicked, vile, and evil. Good does not require loyalty pledges. Only evil does. And requiring children to say the Pledge of Allegiance is blatant brainwashing and is antithetical to the principles of democracy, liberty, and an educated and just society.
Dan8267
2016 Jan 27, 9:07pm
There's copper coins all over Hadrian's Wall
Interesting tidbit about Hadrian's Wall. It wasn't built to keep barbarians out of Roman Britain, but rather to keep Rome from being politically pressured by politicians to expand even further. The thing about walls is that they don't move. They have a fixed location. So Hadrian could justify not expanding Rome's reach further and expending unnecessary resources for little gain and risking over-expansion.
FortWayne
2016 Jan 27, 9:24pm
Dan - did those nations become "great" after they gave up Christianity? Really? Imagine what Europe would look like today without Christianity.
You can't ask Dan to imagine that. In his mind he sees a very different world, he's a communist. He can't understand that without Christianity principles of "love thy neighbor" you only get a society where dog eats dog, where exploitation of human race for the benefit of the government is the norm. He doesn't understand how society needs to be raised on moral principles so that it would not fall into decadence and decay like we are falling into today.
curious2
2016 Jan 27, 9:28pm
There's copper coins all over Hadrian's Wall
Interesting tidbit about Hadrian's Wall. It wasn't built to keep barbarians out of Roman Britain....
Yes it was, along with the other purpose you mention, and (crucially) more. First, the construction project kept the legions busy, because Hadrian knew that idle hands do the devil's work, especially in the military. Second, it gave Roman soldiers a secure place to live, with the equivalent of garrison towns all along the border. (Even engineers need security Dan, because you can't design and build much if barbarians kill you.) Third, it was by far the most impressive construction project the barbarians had ever seen, and in addition to providing Roman soldiers a formidable defense, it made a hugely powerful statement to deter raids: don't dare mess with an empire that can literally wall off entire countries.
In contrast, Germany's Christian Democrat leaders prefer to throw their coins like a trail of bread crumbs for the barbarians to follow, and prostrate themselves like doormats with a big "WELCOME" sign on their backs. Such is what Neitzsche would call the change of morality from master to slave, pagan Roman to Christian. The Romans believed and proved, "our civilization is better and our beliefs are better, and if you don't like it then stay the hell out you barbarian fools." The Scots, even more stubborn then than now, stayed out for 1,000 years.
But you do have a point: Hadrian wasn't hell bent on bankrupting the treasury to "improve" the whole world. Though he had risen through the ranks of the military, like Eisenhower, he wasn't beholden to the military industrial complex. If the barbarians wanted to live primitively and watch their children die prematurely on the moors, Hadrian didn't try to save them from themselves.
systemic intergenerational poverty
I had considered that cost and the best way I can explain it is by reference to your own charts above on life expectancy. Most of the gain in doubling life expectancy came from reducing childhood mortality. Even when average life expectancy at birth was 40, most people didn't die at 40; if they survived past the age of 10, most tended to live to around 70. When you average two different data sets, you can get a muddled and misleading result.
Ditto the "costs" ("intergenerational poverty") that you misattribute to slavery. In 1865, former slaves had nothing but their freedom, just like many of the Irish immigrants who arrived in 1848, and many immigrants through Ellis Island into the 20th century. The differences since then result from Jim Crow followed intentionally by the "drug war", which took off in earnest after black Americans began succeeding conspicuously. And seriously, the personal obsession with Billie Holiday. Federal programs intended supposedly to help had also perverse incentives and adverse consequences, including for example the story of the Pruitt Igoe housing project. Most of the deck gets re-shuffled every three generations or so, but the drug war continues to inflict deliberate injury, and that produces an adversely affected data set (e.g. prisoners fixing Chris Christie's broken office chairs for no money, unable to support their own kids), which in turn pulls down the averages. Racists blame the lower averages on allegedly lower intelligence, while others blame it on slavery, but it results mainly from ongoing policies including especially the drug war.
« First « Previous Comments 528 - 567 of 2,815 Next » Last » Search these comments
A Call to the Muslims of the World from a Group of Freethinkers and Humanists of Muslim Origins
Dear friends,
The tragic incidents of September 11 have shocked the world. It is unthinkable that anyone could be so full of hate as to commit such heinous acts and kill so many innocent people. We people of Muslim origin are as much shaken as the rest of the world and yet we find ourselves looked upon with suspicion and distrust by our neighbours and fellow citizens. We want to cry out and tell the world that we are not terrorists, and that those who perpetrate such despicable acts are murderers and not part of us. But, in reality, because of our Muslim origins we just cannot erase the stigma of Islamic Terrorism from our identity!
What most Muslims will say:
Islam would never support the killing of innocent people. Allah of the Holy Qur'an never advocated killings. This is all the work of a few misguided individuals at the fringes of society. The real Islam is sanctified from violence. We denounce all violence. Islam means peace. Islam means tolerance.
What knowledgeable Muslims should say:
That is what most Muslims think, but is it true? Does Islam really preach peace, tolerance and non-violence? The Muslims who perpetrate these crimes think differently. They believe that what they do is Jihad (holy war). They say that killing unbelievers is mandatory for every Muslim. They do not kill because they wish to break the laws of Islam but because they think this is what true Muslims should do. Those who blow-up their own bodies to kill more innocent people do so because they think they will be rewarded in Paradise. They hope to be blessed by Allah, eat celestial food, drink pure wine and enjoy the company of divine consorts. Are they completely misguided? Where did they get this distorted idea? How did they come to believe that killing innocent people pleases God? Or is it that we are misguided? Does really Islam preach violence? Does it call upon its believers to kill non-believers? We denounce those who commit acts of violence and call them extremists. But are they really extremists or are they following what the holy book, the Qur'an tells them to do? What does the Qur'an teach? Have we read the Qur'an? Do we know what kind of teachings are there? Let us go through some of them and take a closer look at what Allah says.
What the Qur'an Teaches Us:
We have used the most widely available English text of the Qur'an and readers are welcome to verify our quotes from the holy book. Please have an open mind and read through these verses again and again. The following quotes are taken from the most trusted Yusufali's translation of the Qur'an. The Qur'an tells us: not to make friendship with Jews and Christians (5:51), kill the disbelievers wherever we find them (2:191), murder them and treat them harshly (9:123), fight and slay the Pagans, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (9:5). The Qur'an demands that we fight the unbelievers, and promises If there are twenty amongst you, you will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, you will vanquish a thousand of them (8:65). Allah and his messenger want us to fight the Christians and the Jews until they pay the Jizya [a penalty tax for the non-Muslims living under Islamic rules] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued (9:29). Allah and his messenger announce that it is acceptable to go back on our promises (treaties) and obligations with Pagans and make war on them whenever we find ourselves strong enough to do so (9:3). Our God tells us to fight the unbelievers and He will punish them by our hands, cover them with shame and help us (to victory) over them (9:14).
The Qur'an takes away the freedom of belief from all humanity and relegates those who disbelieve in Islam to hell (5:10), calls them najis (filthy, untouchable, impure) (9:28), and orders its followers to fight the unbelievers until no other religion except Islam is left (2:193). It says that the non-believers will go to hell and will drink boiling water (14:17). It asks the Muslims to slay or crucify or cut the hands and feet of the unbelievers, that they be expelled from the land with disgrace and that they shall have a great punishment in world hereafter (5:34). And tells us that for them (the unbelievers) garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods (22:19-22) and that they not only will have disgrace in this life, but on the Day of Judgment He shall make them taste the Penalty of burning (Fire) (22:9). The Qur'an says that those who invoke a god other than Allah not only should meet punishment in this world but the Penalty on the Day of Judgment will be doubled to them, and they will dwell therein in ignominy (25:68). For those who believe not in Allah and His Messenger, He has prepared, for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire! (48:13). Although we are asked to be compassionate amongst each other, we have to be harsh with unbelievers, our Christian, Jewish and Atheist neighbours and colleagues (48:29). As for him who does not believe in Islam, the Prophet announces with a stern command: Seize ye him, and bind ye him, And burn ye him in the Blazing Fire. Further, make him march in a chain, whereof the length is seventy cubits! This was he that would not believe in Allah Most High. And would not encourage the feeding of the indigent! So no friend hath he here this Day. Nor hath he any food except the corruption from the washing of wounds, Which none do eat but those in sin. (69:30-37) The Qur'an prohibits a Muslim from befriending a non-believer even if that non-believer is the father or the brother of that Muslim (9:23), (3:28). Our holy book asks us to be disobedient towards the disbelievers and their governments and strive against the unbelievers with great endeavour (25:52) and be stern with them because they belong to Hell (66:9). The holy Prophet prescribes fighting for us and tells us that it is good for us even if we dislike it (2:216). Then he advises us to strike off the heads of the disbelievers; and after making a wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives (47:4). Our God has promised to instil terror into the hearts of the unbelievers and has ordered us to smite above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them (8:12). He also assures us that when we kill in his name it is not us who slay them but Allah, in order that He might test the Believers by a gracious trial from Himself (8:17). He orders us to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies (8:60). He has made the Jihad mandatory and warns us that Unless we go forth, (for Jihad) He will punish us with a grievous penalty, and put others in our place (9:39). Allah speaks to our Holy Prophet and says O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern against them. Their abode is Hell - an evil refuge indeed (9:73).
He promises us that in the fight for His cause whether we slay or are slain we return to the garden of Paradise (9:111). In Paradise he will wed us with Houris (celestial virgins) pure beautiful ones (56:54), and unite us with large-eyed beautiful ones while we recline on our thrones set in lines (56:20). There we are promised to eat and drink pleasantly for what we did (56:19). He also promises boys like hidden pearls (56:24) and youth never altering in age like scattered pearls (for those who have paedophiliac inclinations) (76:19). As you see, Allah has promised all sorts or rewards, gluttony and unlimited sex to Muslim men who kill unbelievers in his name. We will be admitted to Paradise where we shall find goodly things, beautiful ones, pure ones confined to the pavilions that man has not touched them before nor jinni (56:67-71).In the West we enjoy freedom of belief but we are not supposed to give such freedom to anyone else because it is written If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good) (3:85). And He orders us to fight them on until there is no more tumult and faith in Allah is practiced everywhere (8:39). As for women the book of Allah says that they are inferior to men and their husbands have the right to scourge them if they are found disobedient (4:34). It advises to take a green branch and beat your wife, because a green branch is more flexible and hurts more. (38:44). It teaches that women will go to hell if they are disobedient to their husbands (66:10). It maintains that men have an advantage over the women (2:228). It not only denies the women's equal right to their inheritance (4:11-12), it also regards them as imbeciles and decrees that their witness is not admissible in the courts of law (2:282). This means that a woman who is raped cannot accuse her rapist unless she can produce a male witness. Our Holy Prophet allows us to marry up to four wives and he licensed us to sleep with our slave maids and as many 'captive' women as we may have (4:3) even if those women are already married. He himself did just that. This is why anytime a Muslim army subdues another nation, they call them kafir and allow themselves to rape their women. Pakistani soldiers allegedly raped up to 250,000 Bengali women in 1971 after they massacred 3,000,000 unarmed civilians when their religious leader decreed that Bangladeshis are un-Islamic. This is why the prison guards in Islamic regime of Iran rape the women that in their opinion are apostates prior to killing them, as they believe a virgin will not go to Hell.
Dear fellow Muslims:Is this the Islam you believe in? Is this your Most Merciful, Most Compassionate Allah whom you worship daily? Could Allah incite you to kill other peoples? Please understand that there is no terrorist gene - but there could be a terrorist mindset. That mindset finds its most fertile ground in the tenets of Islam. Denying it, and presenting Islam to the lay public as a religion of peace similar to Buddhism, is to suppress the truth. The history of Islam between the 7th and 14th centuries is riddled with violence, fratricide and wars of aggression, starting right from the death of the Prophet and during the so-called 'pure' or orthodox caliphate. And Muhammad himself hoisted the standard of killing, looting, massacres and bloodshed. How can we deny the entire history? The behaviour of our Holy Prophet as recorded in authentic Islamic sources is quite questionable from a modern viewpoint. The Prophet was a charismatic man but he had few virtues. Imitating him in all aspects of life (following the Sunnah) is both impossible and dangerous in the 21st century. Why are we so helplessly in denial over this simple issue? When the Prophet was in Mecca and he was still not powerful enough he called for tolerance. He said To you be your religion, and to me my religion (109:6). This famous quote is often misused to prove that the general principle of Qur'an is tolerance. He advised his follower to speak good to their enemies (2: 83), exhorted them to be patient (20:103) and said that there is no compulsion in religion (2:256). But that all changed drastically when he came to power. Then killing and slaying unbelievers with harshness and without mercy was justified in innumerable verses. The verses quoted to prove Islam's tolerance ignore many other verses that bear no trace of tolerance or forgiveness. Where is tolerance in this well-known verse Alarzu Lillah, Walhukmu Lillah. (The Earth belongs to Allah and thus only Allah's rule should prevail all over the earth.).Is it normal that a book revealed by God should have so many serious contradictions? The Prophet himself set the example of unleashing violence by invading the Jewish settlements, breaking treaties he had signed with them and banishing some of them after confiscating their belongings, massacring others and taking their wives and children as slaves. He inspected the youngsters and massacred all those who had pubic hair along with the men. Those who were younger he kept as slaves. He distributed the women captured in his raids among his soldiers keeping the prettiest for himself (33:50). He made sexual advances on Safiyah, a Jewish girl on the same day he captured her town Kheibar and killed her father, her husband and many of her relatives. Reyhana was another Jewish girl of Bani Quriza whom he used as a sex slave after killing all her male relatives. In the last ten years of his life he accumulated two scores of wives, concubines and sex slaves including the 9 year old Ayesha. These are not stories but records from authentic Islamic history and the Hadiths. It can be argued that this kind of behaviour was not unknown or unusual for the conquerors and leaders of the mediaeval world but these are not the activities befitting of a peaceful saint and certainly not someone who claimed to be the Mercy of God for all creation. There were known assassinations of adversaries during the Prophet's time, which he had knowledge of and had supported. Among them there was a 120 year old man, Abu 'Afak whose only crime was to compose a lyric satirical of the Prophet. (by Ibn Sa'd Kitab al Tabaqat al Kabir, Volume 2, page 32) Then when a poetess, a mother of 5 small children 'Asma' Bint Marwan wrote a poetry cursing the Arabs for letting Muhammad assassinate an old man, our Holy Prophet ordered her to be assassinated too in the middle of the night while her youngest child was suckling from her breast. (Sirat Rasul Allah (A. Guillaume's translation The Life of Muhammad) page 675, 676).The Prophet did develop a 'Robin Hood' image that justified raiding merchant caravans attacking cities and towns, killing people and looting their belongings in the name of social justice. Usama Bin Laden is also trying to create the same image. But Robin Hood didn't claim to be a prophet or a pacifist nor did he care for apologist arguments. He did not massacre innocent people indiscriminately nor did he profit by reducing free people to slaves and then trading them. With the known and documented violent legacy of Islam, how can we suddenly rediscover it as a religion of peace in the free world in the 21st century? Isn't this the perpetuation of a lie by a few ambitious leaders in order to gain political control of the huge and ignorant Muslim population? They are creating a polished version of Islam by completely ignoring history. They are propagating the same old dogma for simple believing people in a crisp new modern package. Their aim: to gain political power in today's high-tension world. They want to use the confrontational power of the original Islam to catalyse new conflicts and control new circles of power.
Dear conscientious Muslims, please question yourselves. Isn't this compulsive following of a man who lived 1400 years ago leading us to doom in a changing world? Do the followers of any other religion follow one man in such an all-encompassing way? Who are we deceiving, them or ourselves? Dear brothers and sisters, see how our Umma (people) has sunk into poverty and how it lags behind the rest of the world. Isn't it because we are following a religion that is outdated and impractical? In this crucial moment of history, when a great catastrophe has befallen us and a much bigger one is lying ahead, should not we wake up from our 1400 years of slumber and see where things have gone wrong? Hatred has filled the air and the world is bracing itself for its doomsday. Should we not ask ourselves whether we have contributed, wittingly or unwittingly, to this tragedy and whether we can stop the great disaster from happening?Unfortunately the answer to the first question is yes. Yes we have contributed to the rise of fundamentalism by merely claiming Islam is a religion of peace, by simply being a Muslim and by saying our shahada (testimony that Allah is the only God and Muhammad is his messenger). By our shahada we have recognized Muhammad as a true messenger of God and his book as the words of God. But as you saw above those words are anything but from God. They call for killing, they are prescriptions for hate and they foment intolerance. And when the ignorant among us read those hate-laden verses, they act on them and the result is the infamous September 11, human bombs in Israel, massacres in East Timor and Bangladesh, kidnappings and killings in the Philippines, slavery in the Sudan, honour killings in Pakistan and Jordan, torture in Iran, stoning and maiming in Afghanistan and Iran, violence in Algeria, terrorism in Palestine and misery and death in every Islamic country. We are responsible because we endorse Islam and hail it as a religion of God. And we are as guilty as those who put into practice what the Qur'an preaches - and ironically we are the main victims too. If we are not terrorists, if we love peace, if we cried with the rest of the word for what happened in New York, then why are we supporting the Qur'an that preaches killing, that advocates holy war, that calls for the murder of non-Muslims? It is not the extremists who have misunderstood Islam. They do literally what the Qur'an asks them to do. It is we who misunderstand Islam. We are the ones who are confused. We are the ones who wrongly assume that Islam is the religion of peace. Islam is not a religion of peace. In its so-called pure form it can very well be interpreted as a doctrine of hate. Terrorists are doing just that and we the intellectual apologists of Islam are justifying it. We can stop this madness. Yes, we can avert the disaster that is hovering over our heads. Yes, we can denounce the doctrines that promote hate. Yes, we can embrace the rest of humanity with love. Yes, we can become part of a united world, members of one human family, flowers of one garden. We can dump the claim of infallibility of our Book, and the questionable legacy of our Prophet.Dear friends, there is no time to waste. Let us put an end to this lie. Let us not fool ourselves. Islam is not a religion of peace, of tolerance, of equality or of unity of humankind. Let us read the Qur'an. Let us face the truth even if it is painful. As long as we keep this lie alive, as long as we hide our head in the sands of Arabia we are feeding terrorism. As long as you and I keep calling Qur'an the unchangeable book of God, we cannot blame those who follow the teachings therein. As long as we pay our Khums and Zakat our money goes to promote Islamic expansionism and that means terrorism, Jihad and war. Islam divides the world in two. Darul Harb (land of war) and Darul Islam (land of Islam). Darul Harb is the land of the infidels, Muslims are required to infiltrate those lands, proselytise and procreate until their numbers increase and then start the war and fight and kill the people and impose the religion of Islam on them and convert that land into Darul Islam. In all fairness we denounce this betrayal. This is abuse of the trust. How can we make war in the countries that have sheltered us? How can we kill those who have befriended us? Yet willingly or unwillingly we have become pawns in this Islamic Imperialism. Let us see what great Islamic scholars have had to say in this respect.Dr. M. Khan the translator of Sahih Bukhari and the Qur'an into English wrote: Allah revealed in Sura Bara'at (Repentance, IX) the order to discard (all) obligations (covenants, etc), and commanded the Muslims to fight against all the Pagans as well as against the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the Jizia (a tax levied on the Jews and Christians) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (as it is revealed in 9:29). So the Muslims were not permitted to abandon the fighting against them (Pagans, Jews and Christians) and to reconcile with them and to suspend hostilities against them for an unlimited period while they are strong and have the ability to fight against them. So at first the fighting was forbidden, then it was permitted, and after that it was made obligatory [Introduction to English translation of Sahih Bukhari, p.xxiv.] Dr. Sobhy as-Saleh, a contemporary Islamic academician quoted Imam Suyuti the author of Itqan Fi 'Ulum al- Qur'an who wrote: The command to fight the infidels was delayed until the Muslims become strong, but when they were weak they were commanded to endure and be patient. [ Sobhy as_Saleh, Mabaheth Fi 'Ulum al- Qur'an, Dar al-'Ilm Lel-Malayeen, Beirut, 1983, p. 269.]Dr. Sobhy, in a footnote, commends the opinion of a scholar named Zarkashi who said: Allah the most high and wise revealed to Mohammad in his weak condition what suited the situation, because of his mercy to him and his followers. For if He gave them the command to fight while they were weak it would have been embarrassing and most difficult, but when the most high made Islam victorious He commanded him with what suited the situation, that is asking the people of the Book to become Muslims or to pay the levied tax, and the infidels to become Muslims or face death. These two options, to fight or to have peace return according to the strength or the weakness of the Muslims. [ibid p. 270]Other Islamic scholars (Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi, Ga'far ar-Razi, Rabi' Ibn 'Ons, 'Abil-'Aliyah, Abd ar-Rahman Ibn Zayd Ibn 'Aslam, etc.) agree that the verse Slay the idolaters wherever you find them (9:5) cancelled those few earlier verses that called for tolerance in the Qur'an and were revealed when Islam was weak. Can you still say that Islam is the religion of peace? We propose a solution.
We know too well that it is not easy to denounce our faith because it means denouncing a part of ourselves. We are a group of freethinkers and humanists with Islamic roots. Discovering the truth and leaving the religion of our fathers and forefathers was a painful experience. But after learning what Islam stands for we had no choice but to leave it. After becoming familiar with the Qur'an the choice became clear: It is either Islam or humanity. If Islam thrives, then humanity will die. We decided to side with humanity. Culturally we are still Muslims but we no longer believe in Islam as the true religion of God. We are humanists. We love humanity. We work for the unity of humankind. We work for equality between men and women. We strive for the secularisation of Islamic countries, for democracy and freedom of thought, belief and expression. We decided to live no longer in self-deception but to embrace humanity, and to enter into the new millennium hand in hand with people of other cultures and beliefs in amity and in peace.We denounce the violence that is eulogized in the Qur'an as holy war (Jihad). We condemn killing in the name of God. We believe in the sanctity of human life, not in the inviolability of beliefs and religions. We invite you to join us and the rest of humanity and become part of the family of humankind - in love, camaraderie and peace.
Arabic translation الترجمة العربية
See http://www.centerforinquiry.net/isis and http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ for more.
Please copy this article, and distribute it as widely as possible, both online and physically. The future of humanity depends on it.