patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,249,672 comments by 14,902 users - HeadSet, mell, Patrick online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 481 - 520 of 2,854 Next » Last » Search these comments
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.
Dan8267
2016 Jan 24, 9:08pm
Atheist don't even believe in themselves.
More nonsense from anti-atheist bigots. The religious can't stand reason.
Dan8267
2016 Jan 24, 9:30pm
They are, like everyone, made in the image of God, but they have the choice to reject Him
1. Your false god is made in the image of man, not the other way around.
2. I have no more choice in disbelieving in your god than I have in disbelieving that George Washington rode a T-Rex in the Battle of Hasting while battling Nazis during the Boxer Rebellion to win America it's freedom from France. A rational person does not choose what he believes, he is compelled to believe by evidence and reasoning.
3. You are an atheist with respect to all other gods. You disbelieve in Thor, Zeus, Shiva, Animikii, and thousands of other gods. When you understand why you reject those gods, you will understand why I reject yours. Until then, you acceptance of your culture's god and rejection of all gods of other cultures is nothing more than bigotry and racism.
Dan8267
2016 Jan 24, 9:33pm
You're right, they believe in the State, their highest source of benevolence.
More nonsense. If I believe in the state like you believe in your false god, then why do I call for prosecution of criminal cops so often? Why do propose rewriting the Constitution from scratch? Why do I not own a single flag? Why did I never pledge allegiance to the flag when all the other school kids did?
Dan8267
2016 Jan 24, 10:01pm
Stumbled on this because of another thread. It's awesome.
0.0% of Icelanders 25 years or younger believe God created the world, new poll reveals
40.5% of people who were 25 years or younger said they were atheists, and only 42% said they were Christian.
The poll found an even more dramatic difference between different generations when it probed how people believed the world had been created. Of those younger than 25 93.9% said the world had been created in the big bang and 0.0% believed God had created the world. 77.7% of those between 25 and 44 years old believed the world had been created in the big bang and 10.1% believed God had created the world. In all but the oldest age category a majority accepted the big-bang theory. Only 46.1% of those older than 55 believed in the big bang, and nearly a fourth, 24.5% believed God had created the world.
Rationality, atheism, jailing bankers, and hot women. If it weren't for the weather, I'd move to Iceland. Maybe I should give up on Florida and embrace global warming.
www.youtube.com/embed/wcW_Ygs6hm0
At least there's this to look forward to.
MisdemeanorRebel
2016 Jan 24, 10:04pm
It's even cooler. The Pirate Party is slated to be a major party in the 2017 elections.
And that chick I told you about, she started a neoSumerian religion, in order to fight the religion support tax, and they rebate the income they receive from the government to their members in cash.
Dan8267
2016 Jan 24, 10:11pm
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pirate_Party
I wish there were a Pirate Party in the U.S.
ja
2016 Jan 25, 12:10am
killing their neighbors via armed conflict if they won't pay a ransom. how do you tolerate that?
It's a fair tax for the inconviniences of having another religion living in your own home. You are internalizing an externalize. If you cannot do this, then you have to do all sorts of social engineering to accomodate the demands of the ruling class (segretate them, kick them out, saw a star on their clothes). I'd prefer ruling classes didn't impose make minorities to conform, but if they have to, capitalism (tax the problem) is the best option
Liberalism is a social, not economic, philosophy that advocates the following principles.
1. All people are equal under law.
2. We are a nation of rights, not privileges.
3. The purpose of government is to protect rights (from life to liberty to property).
4. People should be allowed to do what they want as long as they are not violating the rights of others. Corollary: There should be no victimless crimes.
Principle 1: nothing specifically liberal about it, this was stated multiple times by the prophets of the Old Testament. Back then it was a huge breakthrough, now it is just a repetition.
Principle 2: the same.
Principle 3: this is, indeed, a socialist invention. Starting from Marx Socialism/Communism always saw the gov’t as a tool for people’s well-being, not a servant of the kings and nobility. Except you make one little mistake (which you repeat again in Principle 4). You mix liberal principles with libertarian ones. Liberal/Socialist principle is not equal rights but equal well-being which is enforced by confiscation and violation of the property rights.
Principle 4: again, this is a Libertarian principle. Liberals/socialists declare you a criminal if you a member of a “criminal classâ€. It is the *class struggle* that is a major socialist principle. Being rich is a crime in itself and all the *poor* are its victims.
The problem with modern liberalism is, it is still a young religion (~150yo). It believes in omnipotent and benevolent government that will solve all the problems, real and imaginary (just like Christians believe in God). Therefore, all the power should go to the Government because it represents the People (hint: it does not).
Judaism came up with the idea of limited government ~2200 years ago. Christianity ~500 years ago. Liberalism still has not.
curious2
2016 Jan 25, 2:13pm
Why would you not go through door number four?
That's a good question. If you look at history, can you cite any examples where groups of atheists set sail to found a new republic with no religion? America might be the closest to an example, with no official religion, but it remains a comparatively religious country; ironically, the countries that most Americans' ancestors emigrated from are actually less religious.
limited government
A very interesting analysis that also shows why most identitarian "conservative Christians" are neither conservative nor Christian.
Lastly, if I may bring the thread back to its original topic:
"Islamic State setting up terror training camps in Europe, police agency warns"
"The current threat demands a strong and ambitious response from the EU," said Europol's chief."
Apparently, if you allow enemy fighters to travel back and forth across your borders, or actually subsidize their arrival, they become much more of a "threat" / expense / revenue opportunity.
NDrLoR
2016 Jan 25, 3:17pm
You disbelieve in Thor, Zeus, Shiva, Animikii, and thousands of other gods
That's right, and you can add Hindus and Buddhists into the mix as well. There is only one God, Jesus Christ, the Way, the Truth and the Life. He makes claims none of the other "dieties" make, such as being present at creation.
Dan8267
2016 Jan 25, 8:13pm
Liberalism is a social, not economic, philosophy that advocates the following principles.
1. All people are equal under law.
2. We are a nation of rights, not privileges.
Principle 1: nothing specifically liberal about it, this was stated multiple times by the prophets of the Old Testament.
Principle 2: the same.
Old Testament is pro-slavery
Rabbi M.J. Raphall (circa 1861) justified human slavery on the basis of the 10th commandment.
Exodus 20:17"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's."
Deuteronomy 5:21"Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor's.
Although an owner could beat a male or female slave, she/he would have to avoid serious injury to eyes or teeth. The owner would have to avoid beating the slave to death. But it was acceptable to beat a slave so severely that it only disabled him or her for two days:
Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]."
Exodus 21:26-27 "And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."
One could purchase a slave from a foreign nation or from foreigners living with them. These slaves would remain in slavery forever, unless the owner chooses to frees them An Israelite who was a slave could be freed by a family member or by himself if he had the money. The cost of freeing a slave was computed on the basis of the number of years to the next Jubilee Year; this could be 1 to 50 years. Male Israelite slaves were automatically freed during the Jubilee Year. Depending upon which verse was being followed, female Israelite slaves might also have been freed at that time as well. Foreign slaves were out of luck.
Exodus 21:1-4: "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."
Deuteronomy 15:12-18: "And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him."
Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."
Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." (NIV)
Leviticus 25:48-53: "After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him: Either his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he be able, he may redeem himself. And he shall reckon with him that bought him from the year that he was sold to him unto the year of jubilee: and the price of his sale shall be according unto the number of years, according to the time of an hired servant shall it be with him."
A slave was considered a piece of property, and thus could normally be resold to anyone at any time for any reason. However, special rules applied for Hebrew slaves. If a person bought a female slave from her father and she displeased him, he had no right to sell her to a foreign owner. If the owner required her to marry his son, then the owner was required to treat her like a daughter-in-law. If the owner marries his slave and later marries another woman, he was required to treat his slave as he previously had.
"If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money."
A man who rapes or engages in consensual sex with a female slave who is engaged to be married to another man must sacrifice an animal in the temple in order to obtain God's forgiveness. The female slave would be whipped. There is apparently no punishment or ritual animal killing required if the female slave were not engaged; men could rape such slaves with impunity.
Leviticus 19:20-22: "And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him."
Various other pro-slavery passages in the Old Testament...
Leviticus 25:39: "And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant: But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee: And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return."
Exodus 21:16: "And he that stealeth [kidnaps] a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."
Deuteronomy 24:7: "If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you."
Exodus 22:3: "...he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."
II Kings 4:1: "Now there cried a certain woman of the wives of the sons of the prophets unto Elisha, saying, Thy servant my husband is dead; and thou knowest that thy servant did fear the LORD: and the creditor is come to take unto him my two sons to be bondmen."
Deuteronomy 21:10-14: "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her [i.e. rape her or engage in consensual sex], and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her."
Deuteronomy 20:14" "But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself"
A male slave would be required to undergo circumcision. This would be a very painful operation for an adult. It was life-threatening in the days before modern medical techniques. A small percentage of slaves would die from infection caused by the operation.
Genesis 17:13: "He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant."
Genesis 17:27: "And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him."
Being property, female slaves could be required to engage in sexual intercourse and become pregnant against their will. The perpetrator could be their owner, or anyone that their owner designates.
Genesis 16:1-2: "Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai."
Genesis 30:3-4: "And she said, Behold my maid Bilhah, go in unto her; and she shall bear upon my knees, that I may also have children by her. And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her."
Genesis 30:9-10: "When Leah saw that she had left bearing, she took Zilpah her maid, and gave her Jacob to wife. And Zilpah Leah's maid bare Jacob a son."
New Testament is pro-slavery
The New Testament is just as bad.
Matthew 18:25: "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made."
Mark 14:66: "And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:"
Jesus is recorded as mentioning slaves in one of his parables. It is important to realize that the term "servant girl" or "maid" in many English translations of the Bible, like the American Standard Version, Amplified Bible, Phillips New Testament, Revised Standard Version, etc. refer to slaves, not employees like a butler, cook, or maid. Here, a slave which did not follow his owner's will would be beaten with many lashes of a whip. A slave who was unaware of his owner's will, but who did not behave properly, would also be beaten, but with fewer stripes.
This would have been a marvelous opportunity for Jesus to condemn the institution of slavery and its abuse of slaves. But he is not recorded of having taken it:
bullet Luke 12:45-48: "The lord [owner] of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."
Way to go Jesus. Not.
One of the favorite passages of slave-owning Christians was St. Paul's infamous instruction that slaves to obey their owners in the same way that they obey Christ:
Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."
Other passages instructing slaves and slave owners in proper behavior are:
Colossians 4:1: "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."
1 Timothy 6:1-3 "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;"
Conclusion
Christianity clearly has never advocated that all people are equal under law. In fact, the despicable religion has been pro-slavery for 90% of it's existence and only started rejecting slavery after being forced to at literal gunpoint. And certainly Christianity has not advocated nations be a societies of rights. The Christian Bible is full of advocation of privileges like the passages above.
Dan8267
2016 Jan 25, 8:23pm
3. The purpose of government is to protect rights (from life to liberty to property).
Principle 3: this is, indeed, a socialist invention. Starting from Marx Socialism/Communism always saw the gov’t as a tool for people’s well-being, not a servant of the kings and nobility. Except you make one little mistake (which you repeat again in Principle 4). You mix liberal principles with libertarian ones. Liberal/Socialist principle is not equal rights but equal well-being which is enforced by confiscation and violation of the property rights.
Also complete bullshit. The origin of the concept of rights goes back at least to the ancient Greeks. Rights were not applied universally as liberal philosophy says, but certainly the state was used to protect the rights of the people who possessed them.
Principle 4: again, this is a Libertarian principle. Liberals/socialists declare you a criminal if you a member of a “criminal classâ€. It is the *class struggle* that is a major socialist principle. Being rich is a crime in itself and all the *poor* are its victims.
That is just a batshit crazy statement. I am the most liberal person on PatNet and a perfect example of a liberal. Liberals do not say that being rich is a crime.
What matters is how a person becomes rich. If you become rich making the world a better place like the founders of Google did, the middle class and liberals support you. If you become rich by selling slaves, starting illegal wars to steal natural resources, or committing financial fraud that causes a depression, then no, neither the middle class nor liberals support you.
You have your head so far up your ass that you have no sense of reality. As such, your opinion on any subject matter should not be taken seriously. Your view of liberals is laughably ridiculous and unrealistic and only serves to show your bigotry and ignorance of how real people think.
Principle 4: again, this is a Libertarian principle. Liberals/socialists declare you a criminal if you a member of a “criminal classâ€. It is the *class struggle* that is a major socialist principle. Being rich is a crime in itself and all the *poor* are its victims.
The problem with modern liberalism is, it is still a young religion (~150yo). It believes in omnipotent and benevolent government that will solve all the problems, real and imaginary (just like Christians believe in God). Therefore, all the power should go to the Government because it represents the People (hint: it does not).
Agreed. Though modern liberalism only hijacked the work liberal, it's really leftism/socialism. The original Liberals were conservative Libertarians. Also the demise of religion and rise of atheism as well as increased participation of women in governments doesn't necessarily bode well as you can see in Europe which is literally inviting the conquering savages. When all faith disappears society will be looking up to those with faith left, even if it is not to their advantage. We have now politicians openly talking about the danger of Europe's invited demise: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/206339#.VqSu5_l95ph
It may be a mistake to discount a prevalent religious culture/tradition in your society as it may be the fabric that has kept the nation strong.
Dan8267
2016 Jan 25, 8:32pm
If you look at history, can you cite any examples where groups of atheists set sail to found a new republic with no religion?
Prior to 1991, I cannot cite any examples of web sites. That does not mean that web sites cannot exist or must be exceedingly rare.
The fact is that mankind has lived in ignorance and superstition for the overwhelming majority of its existence. However, as ignorance and superstition has been replaced with rationalism, naturalism, and liberalism, mankind has
- literally flown in the sky
- walked on the moon
- created a world-wide telecommunications network united the entire globe and replicating mankind's vast knowledge in every corner of the world
- wiped out disease
- practically eliminated infant and childhood mortality. People used to have five to eight children expecting most of them to die before adulthood.
- doubled the human lifespan
- reduced warfare greatly
- eliminated almost all of rape and murder. Yes, it still happens but in orders of magnitude less than before science.
The 20th century alone is irrefutable testimony to the power of rationalism, naturalism, and liberalism (RNL). And the fact is that we are only in the beginning of the RNL revolution. It would be foolish to suggest that a RNL society is somehow inferior because it hadn't been invented in the past 10,000 years. Electronics hadn't existed in those 10,000 years. One would not say that electronics are a foolish and useless idea.
Dan8267
2016 Jan 25, 8:43pm
You disbelieve in Thor, Zeus, Shiva, Animikii, and thousands of other gods
That's right, and you can add Hindus and Buddhists into the mix as well. There is only one God, Jesus Christ, the Way, the Truth and the Life. He makes claims none of the other "dieties" make, such as being present at creation.
And this brings us back to Patrick's position that Christianity is inherently different from Islam and my counter-argument that it is not. Although Islam today is far worse than Christianity today, they are fundamentally the same thing as P N Dr Lo R demonstrates in his irrational post. And P N Dr Lo R cannot even understand how irrational and ridiculous his statements are because he is so brainwashed. Let's be honest. Is P N Dr Lo R really any different in his irrational, obsessive, and unquestioning devotion to a bunch of lies than the person in the following video?
www.youtube.com/embed/-8b3vhTO248
And that is what religion does to a mind. It makes people irrational and close-minded. It makes people ignore all facts, all information contradicting their agenda, and all reason.
People like this idiot Muslim and the idiot Christian P N Dr Lo R cannot realize that there are people who just fervently believe that their god is true and the Christian/Islam god is false and heretics who believe in it must die. They cannot be reasoned with, and that makes them dangerous both directly and indirectly. The are dangerous in their actions, in the spreading of their bad ideas, in their influence to use government as a tool of suppression. And this is why we rational people should be united against religion itself, not just some particular religions, but all religions and all possible religions. Religion is inherently evil. Faith is intrinsically vile.
curious2
2016 Jan 25, 10:15pm
Is P N Dr Lo R really any different in his irrational, obsessive, and unquestioning devotion to a bunch of lies than the person in the following video?
Yes, and it's the same as the difference between Fortwayne, whom I call Forthood, and the actual Fort Hood religious fanatic. If they had actually been the same, then disagreement might have ended in massacre.
The original Liberals were conservative Libertarians.
Yes, and I feel dismayed that most people who call themselves "liberal" support policies that I consider illiberal, e.g. Obamneycare. It's amazing to consider that the first five Presidents, who lived a median 82 years, would all have been punished by Obamneycare because they never bought medical insurance.
It may be a mistake to discount a prevalent religious culture/tradition in your society as it may be the fabric that has kept the nation strong.
The strongest countries have (or had) Christian majorities, but some of the weakest still do, e.g. Haiti, so a prevalent religious culture or tradition might not provide a reliable predictor of strength. Also, in the west, even many of the Christian religious leaders are welcoming Islam. ("The pontiff used an address to Vatican ambassadors on Monday to urge European governments to keep welcoming migrants....") Meanwhile, eastern European countries are resisting, even in countries that are relatively less religious (e.g. Hungary and the Czech Republic). So, the correlation at the level of whole countries seems relatively weak, and there is a lot of irony within countries: while the opposition to Muslim immigration comes mainly from Christian nationalists, in fact the atheists are at greatest risk from Islam and should be most opposed to it. If you believe (as P N Dr Lo R claims to) that you can "access" an omnipotent god who is watching over you all the time, then hapless Muslims with mere rifles and pipe bombs would seem trivial in comparison; if you believe that you're on your own, then suddenly those Muslim terrorists become an existential threat to the only life you will ever have. I attribute the misalignment between religious belief and political opinion to the tendency to adopt identitarian beliefs: most people don't really think through what they claim to believe or support, they merely agree to agree with a partisan or sectarian community affiliation.
Dan8267
2016 Jan 25, 11:18pm
Yes, and it's the same as the difference between Fortwayne, whom I call Forthood, and the actual Fort Hood religious fanatic. If they had actually been the same, then disagreement might have ended in massacre.
Put someone like P N Dr Lo R in a society like Afghanistan or Medieval Europe and you may get the same result. Sure external factors suppress the violent tendencies of the religious, but the mental state is largely the same.
curious2
2016 Jan 26, 1:15am
Afghanistan
Coincidentally:
Such insider attacks are often happening in the remote areas of the country especially where Taliban insurgents have a strong presence."
I agree about P N Dr Lo R, in fact I think he's another Forthood closet case but lives alone with his cars instead of in a miserable and flatulent marriage. As Christians though, they merely post ignorance on the Interwebs, where ignorance abounds anyway. If they had been born to Muslim families, they would more likely seek violent martyrdom in the name of Islam.
Dan8267
2016 Jan 26, 7:41am
Religion does not guarantee violence, of course, but it does guarantee irrationality and the disregard of evidence and that does greatly increase susceptibility to becoming violent, promoting violence, or condoning violence done in the name of one's own tribe. Additionally, those two things promote all sorts of bad decision making while undermining wise decision making.
Against that, what good does religion offer that cannot be achieved without religion?
NDrLoR
2016 Jan 26, 2:38pm
And P N Dr Lo R cannot even understand how irrational and ridiculous his statements are because he is so brainwashed
And you're not? Right out of Saul Alinky's Rules for Radicals, dedicated to Lucifer, the Father of LIes, which makes it appropriate. What is amazing is the endless anger I provoke, which is always entertaining--and predictible.
Dan8267
2016 Jan 26, 3:28pm
What is amazing is the endless anger I provoke,
You are confusing pity and disappointment for anger.
Right out of Saul Alinky's Rules for Radicals, dedicated to Lucifer, the Father of LIes, which makes it appropriate.
Lucifer is a fictional character. If you do not understand that, you are crazy and proving my point that religion needs to die.
As P N Dr Lo R demonstrates, religion destroys the ability of people to grasp reality. This is a very dangerous thing. Not all evils are caused by this, but many of the greatest evils are.
Christianity has a long history of such insanity from its beginnings all the way to today. Christianity isn't some "tame" religion that no longer causes harm. It destroys minds.
All religions, including Christianity, do more brain damage than lead poisoning, and exposing children to it is child abuse.
curious2
2016 Jan 26, 4:24pm
What is amazing is the endless anger I provoke, which is always entertaining--and predictible.
Islam provokes anger too, but that isn't something to be proud of:
Samy Mohamed Hamzeh was charged with possessing machine guns and a silencer, according to the Department of Justice.
The Wisconsin man “wanted this mass shooting to be ‘known the world over’ and to ‘ignite’ broader clashes,†Acting United States Attorney Gregory J. Haanstad said in a statement."
irrationality and the disregard of evidence...does greatly increase susceptibility to becoming violent, promoting violence, or condoning violence done in the name of one's own tribe.
True, but some doctrines show a much worse risk of producing that result. Christianity tells believers to love the unbelievers and to pray for them, and to forgive them for calling the believers foolish. Islam tells believers to cut off the unbelievers' heads. If I have to choose between annoying Morons trying to sell me their underwear, vs a team of armed Muslim assailants trying to kill me, I'll survive the Morons. (Beware of Morons in Mountain Meadows, though, and never vote the way they tell you to vote.) Even when Christians commit mass shootings "for the babies," it's one lone Christian wacko; when Muslims do the same, it tends to include a whole support team (partly because each martyr perpetrator can name up to 70 helpers for inclusion in paradise).
resistance
2016 Jan 26, 7:46pm
If I have to choose between annoying Morons trying to sell me their underwear, vs a team of armed Muslim assailants trying to kill me, I'll survive the Morons.
very true.
not all religions are the same. in fact, they are very different from each other.
islam is unique in having hate of unbelievers as its core doctrine.
Yes, and I feel dismayed that most people who call themselves "liberal" support policies that I consider illiberal,
Agreed, but the term has now stuck deep for anything left of the spectrum. Similar though for what passes as conservative, original conservatives were more isolationist in nature (as opposed to the southern democrats then turned republican), and neocons are no conservatives.
The strongest countries have (or had) Christian majorities, but some of the weakest still do, e.g. Haiti, so a prevalent religious culture or tradition might not provide a reliable predictor of strength. Also, in the west, even many of the Christian religious leaders are welcoming Islam. ("The pontiff used an address to Vatican ambassadors on Monday to urge European governments to keep welcoming migrants....") Meanwhile, eastern European countries are resisting, even in countries that are relatively less religious (e.g. Hungary and the Czech Republic). So, the correlation at the level of whole countries seems relatively weak, and there is a lot of irony within countries: while the opposition to Muslim immigration comes mainly from Christian nationalists, in fact the atheists are at greatest risk from Islam and should be most opposed to it.
Most of the strongly resisting eastern European countries are fare more Christian/nationalist/religious than their western brothers and sisters, so I see some correlation here. Also, religion plays a strong role in the resistance, for example in the anti-immigration rallies in Poland. I see the Pontiff and the western nations more as NATO/UN puppets, so they do as they have been told.
Against that, what good does religion offer that cannot be achieved without religion?
While religion often offered little explanation for rules a lot of the rules made sense before they could be scientifically explained such as the bleeding out of meat followed by salting it (to reduce food borne illness) or discouragement/intolerance of (esp. male) gay sex (spreads STDs much more rapidly). It also served and still serves as a moral compass for people who would otherwise potentially act far worse. It is questionable whether humans behave better without faith despite all the shortcomings and shortcuts faith-based action/lifestyle may come with. Some of the "best" (in terms of do-gooders and altruists) people I know are deeply Christian and I support their causes even though I stay mostly out of organized religion.
Dan8267
2016 Jan 26, 9:13pm
Against that, what good does religion offer that cannot be achieved without religion?
While religion often offered little explanation for rules a lot of the rules made sense before they could be scientifically explained
In other words none today now that we have science and reasoning. I would argue that just because cultures used religion to codify knowledge gained by trial and error, religion was not a necessary or an optimal way to codify that knowledge in culture.
True, but some doctrines show a much worse risk of producing that result.
islam is unique in having hate and murder of unbelievers as its core doctrine.
Yes some doctrines are far worse than others, but the fundamental problem of faith crosses all religion. And faith causes even the best written religion to become evil. Jesus was all good and hippie since the beginning of Christianity and yet that did not prevent Christians from committing atrocities throughout the ages including genocide, slavery, mass rape, torture, terrorism, burning people at the stake, and countless other evil actions. The noble -- and I use that term loosely -- New Testament did not stop Christians from behaving as badly as Muslims for a thousand years.
Good doctrine + faith = evil
Evil doctrine + faith = more evil
Evil doctrine - faith = repeal of evil doctrine
Without faith, society can build moral systems and establish socially just systems. With faith, even the best foundations will become corrupt and evil.
The most dangerous aspect of faith is not the particular doctrine accepted but the fact that the faithful accept doctrines to begin with. Doctrines are inherently dangerous.
« First « Previous Comments 481 - 520 of 2,854 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.