patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,261,054 comments by 15,056 users - FarmersWon, goofus, Patrick, Tenpoundbass online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 456 - 495 of 2,900 Next » Last » Search these comments
not merely made legal, but made the state religion. you are simply talking about religion and government being joined so that resistance to the religion is assumed to be resistance to the government. the particular religion is irrelevant to that effect. (except that islam demands to also be the government - separation of church and state is explicitly forbidden for them, while christians and all others can live with the separation)
What the hell are you talking about? The edict of milan didn't make Christianity the state religion. Constantine recognized Christianity primarily because Christians spent so much time fighting among themselves as the various sects sought supremacy it was destabilizing the empire. Constantine thought, wrongly, that if Christianity became a state recognized (and supported) religion the infighting would stop. Constantine continued to worship pagan gods. For example after gaining victory in the Battle of the Milvian Bridge (312), a triumphal arch—the Arch of Constantine—was built (315) to celebrate his triumph. The arch is decorated with images of the goddess Victoria. At the time of its dedication, sacrifices to gods like Apollo, Diana, and Hercules were made.
christians may have distain for non-christians, but do not generally hate them with a white-hot intensity which rapidly spills over into public massacres and happy death in the process. that is unique to islam among all religions.
You might want to mention that the good Christians that killed so many cathars and jews and many other groups. Apparently they didn't get the memo.
resistance
2016 Jan 23, 3:08pm
oh, off by a couple years, but not far:
Nicene Christianity became the state church of the Roman Empire with the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 CE, when Emperor Theodosius I made it the Empire's sole authorized religion.
there is nothing in christianity itself which directs its followers to deliberately massacre those who refuse to convert. such massacres were almost always reactions by governments to threats against their own power. the massacres of cathars were a political reaction to a threat to christian power.
jews got killed in the middle ages not specifically because of judaism itself, which is after all the basis of christianity, but because they were a self-isolating ethnic group pretty much in charge of money lending, so that lots of people had a big financial motive to get rid of them, and thereby get rid of their debts. even the nazis did not kill the jews because of religion.
only islam has specific instructions to convert or kill the whole world.
Dan8267
2016 Jan 23, 3:48pm
not merely made legal, but made the state religion. you are simply talking about religion and government being joined so that resistance to the religion is assumed to be resistance to the government. the particular religion is irrelevant to that effect.
Obviously combining religion with state authority is terrible, but it is the nature of the religious to demand government based on their religion. That is true even today in America. Was the call to ban same sex religion based on anything but religion? How about the outlawing of prostitution and public nudity? What about anti-gambling laws? Laws prohibiting the purchase of alcohol or porn on Sundays? What about the demands for public schools to teach the false subject of creationism/intelligent-design?
Even if the religious do not advocate a state-sponsorship of their religion, they do vote based upon false information because of their religion. Many Americans refuse to believe in rising sea levels because "god promised not to destroy the world again with a flood". Even our high ranking politicians are brainwashed by religion.
“Climate is changing and climate has always changed and always will,†Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe, chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a recent address to the Senate. “The hoax is that there are some people who are so arrogant to think they are so powerful they can change climate. Man can’t change climate.†Inhofe has been arguing for years that only God and His natural works—not the activities of humankind—can affect the climate. "[M]y point is, God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous," he said in a 2012 address given to a Voice of Christian Youth America radio program. And in his theological belief that the environment is outside of humanity’s control, Inhofe is not alone.
For evangelical Protestants, accepting climate change but attributing it to God’s direct or indirect intervention, rather than human activity, appears to be the new party line, despite the efforts of evangelical climate scientists like Katharine Hayhoe. Recent polls suggest evangelicals are more likely than any other religious cohort to chalk worsening natural disasters up to the apocalypse, instead of human impacts on the environment.
Read that again. This isn't just a senator, which would be bad enough. This is the chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Holy fuck in a basket.
When that is Christianity's effect on our society, why should I have any tolerance for it?
Dan8267
2016 Jan 23, 3:52pm
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2009/05/terrifying-brilliance-of-islam.html
read that please. christianity was just baby steps toward islam.
All religions are subject to criticism. Of course, in the great scheme of things, the Christianity and Islam are not equal; the latter is way behind and isn't largely secularized.
Agreed. Islam today is far worse than Christianity today. But they are still the same disease. The root cause of irrationality is bad. The idea of a god itself is bad because the whole purpose of a god, especially an "only" god in monotheism, is unquestionable authority and control. At least with polytheism, the gods can disagree and thus cannot be moral authorities, but monotheism is all about tyranny. The state loves a single god that they control. Not questioning that god is to not question the state.
MisdemeanorRebel
2016 Jan 23, 4:10pm
jews got killed in the middle ages not specifically because of judaism itself, which is after all the basis of christianity, but because they were a self-isolating ethnic group pretty much in charge of money lending, so that lots of people had a big financial motive to get rid of them, and thereby get rid of their debts. even the nazis did not kill the jews because of religion.
Jews were used as tax collectors because there were only two large literate groups: The Christian Clergy and the Jews. A Lord can't use the former because A) The Clergy doesn't want to collect taxes, it's unpopular and B) If they agreed, the clerics are loyal to the Church first and would soon discover the Lord was lying to them about Taxes to short them on Tithes, and report it to the Archbishop/Pope who would then demand the gold or exommunicate their ass. Also, the Jews are disliked for being alien, so when the peasants revolt about taxes or against authority, you blame it all on the Jews. Kind of like how the Republicans hold hearings to lambast the IRS instead of themselves in Congress who set the tax laws and rates in the first place. Since the Jews were despised as Jesus Killers anyway, it gave Jews some protection as they had the (Earthly) Lord behind them.
Finally, tax collection wasn't like today: Collect Taxes, put it Treasury. It was Tax Farming - find wealthy people or groups to put up a lump sum for a little less than what you expect to collect, then give them the right to collect taxes to make it up (and then some). Some Jews were out collecting taxes, with a bunch of mustachioed big Poles or Ukrainians or Germans with them. You better pay Schlomo or Angry Hans, Big Tadeuz, or Fierce Khokhol would beat you up and wring you chickens' necks. Since Jews could lend at interest, many of them had the cash to pay the taxes, hire bully boys and go out and make up their investment. Like all Tax Farmers in history, they weren't in the mood to forgive, but to throw the book at everyone because they needed to make up their initial investment, as well as a profit to cover their expenses and to make more money.
But most anger at the Jews was BS, since most Jews were poor-ass chicken pluckers who weren't allowed to own land of decent size. Most had to buy seed from Christians to feed their Chickens, or take on a trade like Doctor or Tinkerer, this was by design as the Lords and Kulaks did not want large Jewish landowners competing with them.
Most Balto-Polish whinging and victim-jealousy today is bullshit, because 30s Poland was worse than Hitler until Kristalnacht. Jews had to sit on "Ghetto Benches" in Universities, were subject to quotas, and kicked out of unions and professional associations for not being Christian (originally Catholic, but then Prussian Protestants in Poland complained, it was opened to them). Under Russian Poland, and before under the GDPL, Jews were not subject to these restrictions - it was part of the new Polish Nationalism.
Waah, 30% of Jews were NKVD. So what? Jews were 15% of the population, generally well educated, happier to be under Soviets than Nazis, and had been oppressed for the past 20 years. 70% of the NKVD in Poland were Catholic Poles.
Final Note: Hitlers goal was the enslavement and eventual extermination of the Slavs. The Jews were the consolation prize once he realized that he probably wouldn't be able to hold most of European Russia.
curious2
2016 Jan 23, 4:14pm
Christianity certainly is not necessary to found a society based on western ideas that predate Christianity like democracy, liberty, and secularism. The ancient Greeks...
prosecuted Aristarchos for heresy, because he said the earth revolved around the sun and that contradicted their belief in geocentrism. They also executed Socrates at the age of 70, because his Socratic method led him to ask questions that discomfited the governing elites. Most believed in gods as commonly as some people believe in angels walking among us.
You can say all the greatest civilizations of the ancient world were founded without Christianity, but your own chart showed the modern world has attained greater advancement, and all of the most advanced modern countries were founded with a Christian majority. Even places like Japan and South Korea had huge American help, while North Korea regressed. The entire Muslim world has a GDP less than Germany, and less freedom.
MisdemeanorRebel
2016 Jan 23, 4:18pm
Socrates was an aristocrat who taught his students to abandon their father's producitve trades (Leatherwork, Masonry, etc.), buy land and slaves, and sit around pondering all day. Who cares about Greeks making things? Just sell slave-grown wheat and slave-mined silver and buy Egyptian imports! (This is actually in Plato discussing Socrates lectures in the market place, he has this basic conversation complaining with a craftsman about foreign competition). He also supported the previous Tyrant, bragged about his cowardice in battle, kept chasing boys even though he was married, etc.
He was killed for challenging the Establishment - flawed, but infant, direct democracy. He favored rule by the Elites, as did his follower Plato.
It certainly wasn't due to him being a Philosopher, a big mouth, or freedom of speech. Greeks had philosophers and big mouths long before Socrates. Plays were made lampooning all philosophers of every stripe. Greeks were always big into debates.
His death due to "Impiety" wasn't about belief in Gods, but about his corrupting of the youth to be lazy slave-owning elitist aristo gobbly-gook peddlers, the 1%ers of the day.
(I may be wrong about this, but Socrates was to be exiled - outlawed and marked for death if he didn't leave - and chose to commit suicide instead).
FortWayne
2016 Jan 23, 4:29pm
so are you going to blame Obama
It's his fault, he is a divisive president, he is racist too. If he didn't hate white people as much as Will Smith hates academy, he would have been a better president.
curious2
2016 Jan 23, 4:41pm
Socrates was....
definitely sentenced to death, although some have said his refusal to escape amounted philosophically to suicide. Plato's Crito explains Socrates' reasoning in a way that could be interpreted as a type of self sacrifice, or suicide-by-cop.
FortWayne
2016 Jan 23, 4:43pm
Was the call to ban same sex religion based on anything but religion?
Most parents don't want to have children exposed to homosexuality just like I don't want them to see genitals of naked pictures you post "dude".
The idea of a god itself is bad because the whole purpose of a god, ..., is unquestionable authority and control
Oh and liberals don't have ultimate authority? You want to talk about ultimate authority, why don't you write a letter to IRS telling them to fuck off and not pay taxes that year... and you'll learn all about that "ultimate authority" pretty fast.
curious2
2016 Jan 23, 4:49pm
Ugh - along comes the closet case Forthood, to provide evidence of Dan's argument while attempting to refute it. Could someone whom Forthood isn't pretending to Ignore please ask him what "college" he claims to have graduated from? I'm genuinely curious to know that. Meanwhile, his early Catholic indoctrination, combined with his barely repressed homosexuality, compel him to attack other people on behalf of his imaginary friend AKA ego extension. His endless racism results from his fear that his attention-starved wife, who gets nothing but flatulence from him, might get pregnant with a black guy, which would humiliate and bankrupt Forthood. Forthood does keep guns at home, which he wouldn't need if he believed he had an omnipotent deity protecting him, but his cowardice prevents him from using them for anything. Eventually he'll probably turn them on himself, hopefully sparing his family, but meanwhile his self-flagellation spills all over the web.
Dan8267
2016 Jan 23, 5:58pm
You can say all the greatest civilizations of the ancient world were founded without Christianity, but your own chart showed the modern world has attained greater advancement, and all of the most advanced modern countries were founded with a Christian majority.
True, but does that mean the most advanced modern countries became great because of Christianity? All the most advanced modern countries practices slavery during the critical period of advancement from 1441 to 1865. How much greatness existed in these countries before 1441? If we're going by historic coincidence, shouldn't we attribute the rise of the great western nations to slavery instead of Christianity as the correlation is far tighter?
I fail to see how a religion that is so anti-science, and thus inhibits technological progress, can be credited with the rise of western civilization. Western nations only exited the dark ages when the power of Christianity began to wane.
there is nothing in christianity itself which directs its followers to deliberately massacre those who refuse to convert. such massacres were almost always reactions by governments to threats against their own power. the massacres of cathars were a political reaction to a threat to christian power.
Really? and Pope Innocent III was head of which countries government when he promised the nobles in northern france they could confiscate the cathars lands if the nobles would crusade against them?
Patrick
2016 Jan 23, 6:48pm
don't be silly. you know full well that the legitimacy of every catholic government at the time of the cathars depended on the legitimacy of catholicism itself.
anti-catholic = anti-government at that time at place
resistance
2016 Jan 23, 7:04pm
www.youtube.com/embed/KXGE2eBUdlQ
damn, this woman is no fear of the truth.
Dan8267
2016 Jan 23, 7:09pm
Certainly the clerics of some religions have rallied their followers to do more harm than the clerics of other religions. However, the point is that the clerics should not have the power to rally the masses to commit genocide and other atrocities in the first place. What gives clerics this power is faith. Faith is the complete suspension of rational thought and is an essential aspect of any religion, by definition. Faith itself is inherently bad and dangerous as it allows huge numbers of people to be manipulated for evil purposes. You cannot separate religion from the vice of faith.
One might try to argue that faith can be used to persuade people to do good, but how stable is such a system? Historically, not very. The thing is that good actually works. Cooperation works better than killing your neighbors. So good does not need to use a tool as vile as faith. People can be persuaded to do good more consistently without faith and thus without the inevitable atrocities that are committed because of faith.
Faith and reason are mutually exclusive, by definition, and reason is a far better tool for promoting good. Reason is a constant force for good. Reason creates cumulative accomplishments. Reason exponentially improves the well-being of mankind. Reason, true reason, is resistant if not impervious to manipulation. Yes, people can use false reasoning to justify evil, but true reasoning ultimately defeats any flawed argument. This does not happen with faith. Bad ideas become doctrines regardless of the particular mythology or teachings or parabolas of a religion.
And even if you accept Christianity as good and Islam as bad, it is clear that Christianity cannot defeat Islam. Christianity has had over 1400 years to defeat Islam, and Islam is only getting stronger. Rationality, naturalism, agnosticism, and atheism has greatly diminished Christianity and will eventually wipe it out. The answer to Islam is no different. Rejection of all things supernatural and unprovable, and the acceptance of rational thought as the only basis of understanding the universe is the only way to defeat Islam and all future violent religions. It may be an uphill struggle, but look how successful this strategy has been for defeating Christianity.
Not even adjusted for population increases!
These graphs give us hope.
Dan8267
2016 Jan 23, 7:34pm
damn, this woman is no fear of the truth.
She is 100% correct. However, all religions are intrinsically based on faith, which is the root problem. All religions require brain washing including all Christian religions. They all especially brainwash children. This is never a good thing. Children should never be exposed to religion, which is inherently brainwashing. Telling children about fictional entities as if they are real and distorting their sense of reality is a form of child abuse.
www.youtube.com/embed/LACyLTsH4ac
And no, this isn't just religious "extremists" in America. What the hell does extremist even mean? Isn't the belief that a fictitious sky daddy created the entire universe extreme in itself?
www.youtube.com/embed/pP1exRKwI48
I grew up in a Catholic community on the mid-atlantic coast. The Catholic schools were taught by nuns and Catholic lay teachers. Now, mid-atlantic Catholicism is probably the most palatable form of Christianity. It's the least violent. The churches, if not the Vatican, actually does help the poor. For the most part it's as tame as Christianity gets. But even in this, probably the best Christian society, children are taught absolutely ridiculous lies like
- you have a guardian angel looking over you
- if you pray to a patron saint, he or she will persuade god to help you
- everything that happens in your life, no matter how bad, is part of god's plan
It is ridiculous and dangerous to base any important decision on these lies. It does the children no good, and makes them worse decision makers as adults. Worse still, children are made to fear an eternal torture chamber called hell if they screw up. That's clear child abuse.
As for moral teachings, religion makes it impossible to question how morality works and to seek a deeper understanding of morality. Moral codes are simply handed to you to be obeyed blindly. We would be far better off teaching why some behavior is moral and other is immoral, teaching the consequences of those behaviors for both the individual and others affected by it. Then we would be promoting conscious moral decisions that would work in the real world where people encounter dilemmas all the time.
Religion holds back the understanding or morality by holding back reasoning and rationality.
Dan8267
2016 Jan 23, 8:52pm
I found an excellent video regarding religion, atheism, and morality. It's a 45 minute video, but at least watch the minute and change from 29:20 to 30:45. The woman in that part of the video expresses my point in this thread very eloquently and compellingly.
www.youtube.com/embed/s3lwG4MytSI
Unfortunately, PatNet has been very buggy with YouTube videos over the past month or so, and putting the time parameter in a video URL seems to break the site now.
She is 100% correct. However, all religions are intrinsically based on faith, which is the root problem. All religions require brain washing including all Christian religions. They all especially brainwash children. This is never a good thing. Children should never be exposed to religion, which is inherently brainwashing. Telling children about fictional entities as if they are real and distorting their sense of reality is a form of child abuse.
There is no problem with having faith in something and little kids are instinctive creatures who need strong leadership and often require metaphors or images for better understanding/coping at that early developmental point in their life. Fairy tales are not real but a purposeful and useful cornerstones of generations of different civilizations, religious or not. Religions do not require brainwashing, you can observe the universe as a scientist and believe that the laws you are observing are those of a higher power or deity (many of the best scientists were religious bit not dogmatic). Any narrative can be exploited as dogma, religious or not. You can clearly see this in all the atrocities committed by leninist/trotzkist/stalinist/socialist societies - not to forget the brutal reigns of Mao and the Khmer rouge - and you can see it now with political correctness and feminism, religion is completely unnecessary for irrational behavior. Religion can be replaced with many things, consumer cults, radical non-religious ideologies and even over-believing in science when the models are fuzzy. Many people live better and have a more positive impact on society due to their faith, and many don't. The jury of whether our society has changed for the better with the decline in religiousness is definitely still out and it's not looking that good. Which brings me back to the eternal battle of whether modern religious or non-religious societies have committed more atrocities (you have to start somewhere in modern times as if you go back far enough there were no non-religious societies).
curious2
2016 Jan 23, 9:52pm
You can say all the greatest civilizations of the ancient world were founded without Christianity, but your own chart showed the modern world has attained greater advancement, and all of the most advanced modern countries were founded with a Christian majority.
True, but does that mean the most advanced modern countries became great because of Christianity? All the most advanced modern countries practices slavery during the critical period of advancement from 1441 to 1865. How much greatness existed in these countries before 1441? If we're going by historic coincidence, shouldn't we attribute the rise of the great western nations to slavery instead of Christianity as the correlation is far tighter?
The correlation is weaker and the causal relationship more complex. As @Thunderlips11 has posted elsewhere, the Muslim countries took many slaves including from Europe. It brought them mainly more time to pound their own heads against the ground 5x/day and recite the same old books. Even today, most of the actual labor in "the land of the two holy places" is done by underpaid foreigners, often abused as badly as if they were slaves. Unlike Niall Ferguson, I don't attribute western success to protestant Christianity, but I do recognize the correlation, and the fact that Christianity permitted the rise that has occurred. In any event, I commented because you wrote that Christianity had infected our society. That reverses the chronology: our society, i.e. American society, formed in the context of a majority Christian culture. That isn't an endorsement of any particular religion, but it is a recognition that cultures with Christian majorities have permitted successes that no Islamic country has ever matched.
Dan8267
2016 Jan 23, 10:17pm
I do recognize the correlation, and the fact that Christianity permitted the rise that has occurred
Strange. My impression of western history is that society advanced despite, not because, of Christianity. Human anatomy was studied illegally against the church's law and the secular laws created by the religious. Galileo was threaten with burning at the stake. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for proposing there may be extraterrestrial life. The Scopes trial hindered the teaching of evolution for years and continues to resonate in many parts of the country. Pope John Paul II told Stephen Hawking not to study the universe beyond the Big Bang because that is the territory of god. Even today, how does Christianity allow us to study the evolutionary basis of morality, the morality of non-human species, and the moral obligations we have to other sentient beings on our planet like whales and dolphins?
Dan8267
2016 Jan 23, 10:19pm
The following is a long, but excellent video on why people believe in gods. The executive summary is that religion is the fast food of thought hijacking our evolutionary mechanisms for perverse purposes like the high fat, sugar, and salt concentration of fast food hijacks evolutionary mechanisms that solved problems in the Stone Age. The details in the video are superb.
MisdemeanorRebel
2016 Jan 23, 10:20pm
Galileo was threaten with burning at the stake. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for proposing there may be extraterrestrial life.
The difference between the two: Gallieo had rich buddies and highly place friends in the Church. Bruno was just a regular guy.
The two are fundamentally different religions: Christianity was for poor Roman Provincial peasants and landless farmers (later adopted by wealthy Roman Widows, and we know that Christianity had "Deaconnesses" in the beginning, in fact the first non-Christian letter about them confirms this fact) and give them hope of justice to the evil oppressors and goodness for the meek in the next world.
Islam was for desert raider-traders, to justify their assaults on farmers and others.
curious2
2016 Jan 24, 3:20am
Human anatomy was studied illegally against the church's law and the secular laws created by the religious.
...studied by Leonardo DaVinci, most notably, most of whose notebooks were lost when they fell into the possession of a Catholic bishop. Ditto the writings of Aristarchos and Sappho, which remain now only in references by other authors whose writings did not contradict church doctrine. And of course the Vatican forced Galileo to recant heliocentrism, on his knees, on pain of death. (DaVinci also suggested heliocentrism, 30 years before Copernicus.) But here's the real question: who else fared better? Your own charts show that 80% of humans believe in a religion. You can call it a waste of time, an enemy of reason, whatever you want, but the question remains. So far, Christianity has proven either the best or the least bad, depending on whether you choose to see the glass half empty or half full. That doesn't make geocentrism accurate, but at least the Vatican apologized eventually and established an observatory. Muslims have never renounced any part of the Koran, much less apologized for what it says. To the contrary, criticizing Islam (aka blasphemy) remains a capital offense per Sharia, as Asia Bibi might someday tell you if Islamic Pakistan ever releases her alive instead of executing her.
Patrick
2016 Jan 24, 10:40am
Unfortunately, PatNet has been very buggy with YouTube videos over the past month or so, and putting the time parameter in a video URL seems to break the site now.
yeah, had to make it much more restrictive after someone started abusing iframes, dan.
NDrLoR
2016 Jan 24, 3:16pm
American society, formed in the context of a majority Christian culture
That's why it's called Christendom, along with Western Europe.
ja
2016 Jan 24, 3:23pm
Most parents don't want to have children exposed to homosexuality
Who are you talking abot? USA? Which region?
Dan8267
2016 Jan 24, 3:39pm
So is atheism.
Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position.
www.youtube.com/embed/j4PaFqc8sRU
Claiming that atheism is based on faith is utterly stupid and disingenuous. Such a claim is an admission that faith is a vice as the claim is an attempt to discredit atheism on the false basis that it is based on faith.
Dan8267
2016 Jan 24, 3:42pm
If atheism is a faith then my property is a place of faith and thus must be exempt from taxes. Until that happens, you have no case that atheism is a faith.
Dan8267
2016 Jan 24, 3:53pm
But here's the real question: who else fared better?
There are four doors before you. Behind the first door is a lion that wants to eat you. 30% of people went through this door and got eaten. Behind the second door is an ISIS suicide bomber. 20% of the people went through this door and got blown up. Behind the third door is a madman. 50% of people went through this door and got tortured, but lived. Behind the fourth door is ten million dollars and Scarlett Johansson waiting to blow you. 0 people went through this door because no one realized it was an option.
Why would you not go through door number four?
reggie
2016 Jan 24, 5:40pm
If atheism is a faith then my property is a place of faith and thus must be exempt from taxes. Until that happens, you have no case that atheism is a faith.
Atheist don't even believe in themselves. You are right, Atheism isn't a faith.
Shaman
2016 Jan 24, 6:34pm
If Atheists don't believe they are special or cosmically important other than an ambulatory bag of trace minerals, should it be legal to kill them? After all, their own argument makes their lives worthless, and further, their accomplishments meaningless.
I submit that it is only the belief in God of other people that keeps such people safe, since believers consider it a sin to destroy human life without great necessity.
When atheists like Josef Stalin, Chairman Mao, and Pol Pot come into power, they are unphased by ideas that human life is special or important because they believe it is most certainly not.
A good reason to marginalize crackpot perverts like Dan. Humanity has never fared well under their rule. Dan is destined to rule a cubicle with an iron fist. That's about all the responsibility he should be allowed.
NDrLoR
2016 Jan 24, 6:54pm
After all, their own argument makes their lives worthless, and further, their accomplishments meaningless.
Well I don't believe their lives are worthless. They are, like everyone, made in the image of God, but they have the choice to reject Him. I've had two good friends for over a decade who are atheists of the Ayn Ryan objectivist variety, but it doesn't keep us from enjoying each other's company--they know I'm a Christian as well as our mutual friend Matt who is a Catholic. We share our common interest as record collectors and he's the founder and proprietor of radiodismuke.com which a critic in the UK last month judged one of the best online radio stations in existence. This past New Year's Eve we had a tenth anniversary of a six hour broadcast of playing records and making commentary.
NDrLoR
2016 Jan 24, 6:58pm
Atheist don't even believe in themselves.
You're right, they believe in the State, their highest source of benevolence. That's the main point Whittaker Chambers makes in his 1952 book Witness--the conflict between other systems is not economic, but whether or not you're going to worship God or man and under communism the choice is to worship man as the highest measure of existence. That's why atheists are almost always people of the left, the state is their highest source of everything.
resistance
2016 Jan 24, 7:19pm
I always thought that jizya was what make in practice Islam better than Christians. Whatever the theory was, we Chistianity didn't have a scape valve to tolerate the other tribe. We just had to kick them out.
actually, jews were tolerated (more or less) in europe right from the beginning of christianity for their literacy and their utility to the ruling classes, though repeatedly expelled from one country or another upon gaining too much economic power, always under some pretext. jews didn't try to convert or kill anyone. they just wanted to run their businesses and didn't really care what non-jews were up to.
islam is very different. it's a foreign army in religious clothing, explicitly dedicated to converting or killing their neighbors via armed conflict if they won't pay a ransom. how do you tolerate that?
the weakness in the west is that we attempt to tolerate it by ignoring the overtly violent political aspects inherent in islam from its beginning, and pretend islam is only about certain customs and prayers. that's a huge mistake.
« First « Previous Comments 456 - 495 of 2,900 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.