| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Last night I spoke at the New York Tolerance Center in Manhattan -- ironically enough, under protection from the NYPD after a death threat. Some New Yorkers, apparently, were not interested in tolerating my calling attention to the activities and goals of the global jihad network.
Irony was heaped on irony when I was confronted after the talk by a couple of self-righteous young people who informed me that America is the real global terrorist threat, and that I should be just as concerned about Jerry Falwell as about somebody like Ayatollah Sistani, whose equation of unbelievers as unclean in the same sense as dogs, pigs, and excrement I had made reference to during the question and answer period. I will be writing more about my exchange with this pair, since it was indicative of some prevailing attitudes that are important to address. But I mention them in this connection because when I saw this New York Observer article, "Local Insurgents: ‘Islamic Thinkers’ Menace Gay N.Y.," (thanks to JP for the link), I thought of them again: they're anxious to make an equation between Christian and Muslim extremists, while glossing over the fact that Falwell and others whom they like to mention do not call for the deaths of homosexuals, while these people do. This demonstrates the bankruptcy and, ultimately, the danger of such moral equivalence arguments, which are nonetheless ubiquitous today in discussions of Islamic terrorism. But their ultimate effect is to divert attention away from those who are actually committing violence and threatening to do so, and shifting it to others who do not commit or preach violence, as well as to people like me who are merely calling attention to the violence, hatred, and intolerance that is daily manifested by adherents of the jihad ideology.
On the evening of July 11, 2004, Kristine Withers walked down 37th Avenue, a main drag in Jackson Heights, Queens, and passed what had become a familiar sight: a group of tables set up on the sidewalk by the Islamic Thinkers Society, a local group of militant Islamists. On the tables, copies of the Koran and books espousing the group’s strict religious beliefs shared space with tracts on Zionism, pamphlets on the dangers of homosexuality, and signs bearing messages like "Your Terrorists Are Our Heroes."Ms. Withers, who identifies herself as a lesbian and a political conservative, was offended by the group’s message. The Islamic Thinkers Society had become a regular feature at local gay-pride parades, where they’ve called for the castration and death of gay men, according to several witnesses who spoke to The Observer. But Ms. Withers said it was as much the anti-American messages as the anti-gay ones that riled her up.
"To me, it’s synonymous with the Nazis recruiting on 42nd Street during World War II," she said of her antagonists.
So, in another installment of the then-yearlong series of hostile exchanges between her and the group, she decided to do something. At one point in the exchange, she told the dozen or so bearded young men who make up the group that the prophet Muhammad was a pedophile. They called her a "Christian bitch," by her account. Then she knocked over a sign and stepped on it. Two young bearded men, members of the group, pulled the sign out from under her, sending her flying to the ground.
Soon, police arrived and took a statement from Mohamed Bahi, a student at Queens College who told The Observer that he is not a member of the group. Ms. Withers was charged with incitement to riot and four other counts. Queens District Attorney Richard Brown assigned the case to the unit of his office that handles bias crimes, though Ms. Withers argued that the Queens District Attorney was going after the wrong person for bias.
The Islamic Thinkers Society wouldn’t answer questions about the confrontation, but members of the group relived their confrontations with Ms. Withers on their password-protected Web site, hundreds of pages of which were provided to The Observer by the SITE Institute in Washington, which monitors online extremist groups. In their discussions, group members referred to Ms. Withers as "it" and a "dirty she-male."
"When ‘it’ came back with fists up and ready for action, it got what it asked for," wrote the site’s administrator, who goes by the name "Islamic Revival" and was apparently among the people on the scene. He described "a couple of slaps and snuffs in the face and a few other hits by a brother NOT from us but a brother who sells Islamic Books near us."
"They said what they said," explained Patrick Clark, a spokesman for Mr. Brown, of the Islamic Thinkers’ anti-gay statements. "But there’s also evidence to indicate that there was a crime that occurred, and that the defendant stomped on merchandise and religious artifacts and interrupted the prayer service and shouted epithets."
The case has since been resolved: Ms. Withers pled guilty this year and enrolled in anger-management classes, she told The Observer, to avoid the expense of a lawyer.
The dispute between an irascible lesbian conservative from Queens and a militant new group well on the fringes of the city’s Muslim community might appear to be a marginal conflict. But to New York’s gays and to some of its Muslim leaders, the scene in Jackson Heights bears a worrying similarity to communal conflicts that are challenging the idea of tolerance across Europe, with particular flashpoints in Holland and Scandinavia. There, young immigrants and the children of immigrants have been drawn to a more radical Islamic ideology than that of their parents. On the extreme fringes, these young men have committed acts of violence against Jews and gays, and in a case that shocked Europe, one young Dutchman of Moroccan origin murdered the filmmaker Theo van Gogh in an Amsterdam street.
"It’s almost a cliché to define it like this, but in the end it’s a question of whether you can tolerate intolerance," said Leon de Winter, a Dutch novelist who has written on the Van Gogh murder. "We are defending the openness, the diversity of this society against tendencies from other cultures, in which this kind of openness which we celebrate is being regarded as a threat."
In this conflict, gays have become canaries in the ideological coal mine. Western liberals have tended to cut Muslim groups slack on their ideological pronouncements, in part out of sympathy with some of their causes—the insurgencies in Chechnya and the Middle East, for example—and in part out of a sense that anti-Muslim sentiment in the West is a more pressing problem than anything Muslims themselves might do.
But the rise of gay bashing on European streets has pushed the question of tolerance a step further and led some to question their reflexive defense of a put-upon minority. It has also opened up a heated debate within the gay community, and among liberals in general, over whether the proliferation of intolerant strains of Islam requires liberals in the West to take a harder line on issues like immigration and assimilation.
For some conservative intellectuals, rising anti-gay violence on the streets of Amsterdam, for example, comes as a kind of vindication.
"For liberals, the violent anti-gay hostility of their fundamentalist Muslim allies may be the first thing that really makes them realize they’re not on the same page," said the conservative gay writer Bruce Bawer, who lives in Oslo, and who is writing a book entitled While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West from Within.
Others argue that the rise of conservative Islam in Europe is, in part, a reaction to Europe’s inability to integrate its immigrant populations. By this argument, America is different, given its openness to newcomers and its different set of Muslim immigrants.
"American Muslims are far better educated and far richer than average," said Muqtedar Khan, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, who dismissed the Islamic Thinkers and their ilk as "small pockets of angry youth."
But here in New York, perhaps the most European of American cities in its traditional tolerance, some disturbing signs have emerged on the line between gay and Muslim communities. The Islamic Thinkers’ Web site is full of suggestions of anti-gay violence: "Man I can’t stop thinking: shoot the qawm of Lut," wrote one of the site’s moderators on May 20, using a Koranic reference to the story of Lot and Sodom....
The Islamic Thinkers, meanwhile, are not too new to American politics to play another familiar card: victimhood.
The group declined to respond to requests from a reporter to discuss their beliefs and their conflict with Ms. Withers. Instead, the group posted to its Web site (www.islamicthinkers.com) an e-mail from The Observer and warned that "an article would be published to deliberately misrepresent Islamic Thinkers Society and its views."
Later, the group posted a similar response to a forthcoming New York Times article: "Again and again, the Muslims of Islamic Thinkers Society have denied any interviews to the media," the Web site read. "Due to the unavailability of any direct source of information, even the reputable media outlets have turned into tabloids. The goal of the media is to suppress Muslims who stand up for injustice is vindicated even more now."
Even members of the Muslim community who have had limited interactions with the Islamic Thinkers are unsure of their origins or their size. The regular group, which spends weekend afternoons on that Jackson Heights street corner, is composed of about a dozen young Muslims, most of them men, some in traditional dress. Some of the group’s members are apparently American-born, and some are converts to Islam.
The Islamic Thinkers gained national notoriety earlier this year when they posted a video on the Internet—titled "Operation Desecrate American Flag"—that depicted them stomping an American flag into the curb and shouting that the "flag represents the Crusader war on Islam headed by the United State government."
The group has also become a fixture at Queens gay events, holding signs with messages like "Allah Will Destroy Nations That Allow Homosexuality" and "Today: Homosexuality; Tomorrow: Pedophilia; What’s Next? Bestiality?" at the borough’s Pride Parade, which runs through Jackson Heights. Last year, screaming matches erupted between the two sides; this year, police kept them apart.
"Somebody in the crowd started shouting ‘Go back to Osama bin Laden!’ or whatever, and these guys started shouting back," recalled Ayaz Ahmed, a gay Pakistani Muslim who attended this year’s parade. "I was like, ‘Oh, my God—what’s happening here?’"
But even some American Muslim groups who maintain that Islam forbids homosexuality have little time for the Islamic Thinkers. The executive director of the New York chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Wissam Nasr, said the group’s style and the destruction of an American flag have caused "dismay" in the city’s Muslim community. The draft of a letter to the Islamic Thinkers, he added, is circulating among religious and communal leaders, and it tells the group: "You really have to know the disapproval that you’re meeting in the Muslim community."…
Other community groups were less willing to distance themselves from the Islamic Thinkers.
Adem Carroll of the Queens-based Islamic Circle of North America, for instance, said that the group was "not my cup of tea," but described it as "a sign of the alienation and anger that’s in the community, adding: "I think the approach of the Bush administration does not help.
"If you’re quoting me, I would hope that whatever I say doesn’t sound like I’m condemning them," Mr. Carroll concluded.
Logged and noted, Mr. Carroll.
Posted by Robert at June 23, 2005 7:07 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
"The executive director of the New York chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Wissam Nasr, said the group’s style and the destruction of an American flag have caused "dismay" in the city’s Muslim community."
-- from the article above
Of course it has caused "dismay." It is too early to reveal so openly Muslm hatred and contempt for the Infidel nation-state in which Muslims who happen to be here must live, and temporarily endure. CAIR and other Muslims would prefer that such sentiments are not displayed in quite such dramatic, attention-getting fashion. Not now. Not yet.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 23, 2005 7:31 AM
What the moonbats who confronted Mr. Spencer were raving about:
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200505020944.asp
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17957
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17927
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17958
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20050513.shtml
I'm sure kt is well-read on this topic. However we haven't seen and will never see a Falwell cutting off heads, as is called for in the koran.
Nor will LaHayes' writing ever be as dangerous as the koran (the 'Left Behind' series that shirki was so afraid of).
Long day ahead, take care all.
Posted by: Gary at June 23, 2005 7:31 AM
These Shonky's need a lesson in self-control. They come off like they're many kangaroos loose in the top paddock. A bunch of agro airy fairy arses.
Posted by: Unbridled at June 23, 2005 8:40 AM
Here is a list of the racial/religious groups or people who have been victims of violence and/or intimidation by Muslim men and women in the streets and University campuses of Britain with whom I have come into contact personally.
*Hindus
*Jews
*Sikhs
*African-Caribbeans
The incidents of hatred range from verbal intimidation and abuse to extreme mob violence (in the matter of the racist attacks against young Jamaican boys in the Midlands by gangs of Muslim youth)
Now, we can add gays to the list of groups of people who have begun to feel the wrath of Islamic violence, bigotry and intolerance.
Note, I have left out white and Christian people for a reason.
That reason is that the marking of these facts shows a remarkable consistency across religions, races, sexuality and culture, across many different countries and even continents. Join the dots. Connect the lines. And yet all these groups, too, are racial and religious and marginal minorities. Not, as the Islamists, their Useful Idiots and myopic rhetoricians suppose, as the result of majoritarian prejudice or 'white racism'. (And what a cheapening of that has been achieved by crying wolf)
Making this plain will irrefutably destroy the wicked lie and myth that being against Islamic bigotry is a chimera called 'Islamophobia', or a type of racism. The evidence is pouring in from Europe, from France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Scandanavia, Britain, Australia and America.
It is flooding in from all sorts of diverse and widespread minority groups: from Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Jamaican, and Homosexuals.
It is clear and simple and in full view, that the incessant and deeply embedded intrinsic hatred, bigotry and intolerance of Islam is manifesting itself in a persistent aggression, violence and intimidation of every group with whom a sizeable Muslim community comes into contact. The rhetoric of the solidarity of the opressed is meaningless here, because the Islamist impulse seeks to dominate, destroy, violate and hate other minorities too; Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Homosexuals.
These are the people whom the left should be protecting and protesting for. Instead, the left has effectively become a lick-spittle for Islamic bigotry, in what has become the greatest, and saddest political irony of our time.
Posted by: Zico at June 23, 2005 8:42 AM
Robert:
About your "couple of self-righteous young people" -- if there was someone in the group wearing a crown or other regal trappings, you were probably dealing with KingTolerance.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at June 23, 2005 8:45 AM
"they're anxious to make an equation between Christian and Muslim extremists, while glossing over the fact that Falwell and others whom they like to mention do not call for the deaths of homosexuals, while these people do."
The likes of Falwell and Robertson know better than to publically advocate such things, but the general suspicion is that this is exactly what they want.
If I'm paranoid about the Islamicist threat, I'm just as paranoid about the Christian right.
Posted by: Loxias at June 23, 2005 9:02 AM
"Dozens hurried to register their names to meet their God," the posting said. It told of one Iraqi youth who had rebuked his leader for failing to give him a suicide assignment, telling him he would complain to God on the Day of Judgment because "you prevented me from meeting my God."
Never underestimate the stupidity of people to believe impossible things and rush to their deaths for ridiculous reasons.
The likes of Falwell and Robertson know better than to publically advocate such things, but the general suspicion is that this is exactly what they want.
I was a member of the religious right for some time until recently so I feel I have some insight into this. I really don’t believe most real church going Christian folk want to kill anyone. However, they wouldn’t mind if God killed all the homosexuals and unbelievers which would only be “God’s Wrath” and that is always just, in their eyes at least. Christians want to “hate the sin but love the sinner” and will tell you that is what they are doing. In reality of course “righteous anger” doesn’t always manifest itself that way.
Theocracy is in direct opposition to democracy. A Christian theocracy, granted sans the stoning and limb severing, would be just as abhorrent as an Islamic one from the point of view of the preservation of freedoms. If you don’t think so you’re either ignorant, deluding yourself or you are caught up in the Christian mythology yourself.
Freedom of religion does mean freedom “from” religion for the non-religious. Non-religious people should never have to bow their head or acknowledge the deities of religious individuals against their will.
These “Islamic thinkers” are theoretical fanatics who oppose our way of life and government and should go somewhere with an Islamic government.
f.g.
Posted by: f.g. at June 23, 2005 9:35 AM
f.g. says: "Freedom of religion does mean freedom “from” religion for the non-religious. Non-religious people should never have to bow their head or acknowledge the deities of religious individuals against their will. "
Ah, but the right of you to swing your fist ends at my nose. As such your freedom from religion ends where my rhetorical freedom of religion begins. As for the right of the non-religionus to "never have to bow their heads or acknowledge the deities of religious individuals against their will," I am afraid that lip service, per the Supreme Court, in the form of what is referred to as "secular Deism" is allowable. This is the laying of the hand on the Bible when swearing to tell the truth prior to taking the stand, etc.
Additionally, I would remind you that the First Amendment, strictly read, only prevents the Federal government from imposing a state religion. The several and seperate state historically did have religious orientations. This nonsense about "the seperation of Church and State" is not in the Constitution, but arises from a court decision and was a rationalization for not funding Catholic parochial schools in New York City, during an era when state-funded public schools provided a good Protestant education.
Posted by: Cthulhu at June 23, 2005 9:47 AM
Cthulhu,
Ah, but the right of you to swing your fist ends at my nose.
Your allusion to violence is interesting. There is nothing violent about “freedom from religion” unless a religious person puts it in there.
This is the laying of the hand on the Bible when swearing to tell the truth prior to taking the stand, etc.
That is a myth, it is not required to lay your hand on the Bible.
…Secular Deism…First Amendment … church and state …
Regardless of what religionists might want, the non-religious are guaranteed a government free of religious dogma. If you really want freedom for everyone that is what you would want. If you want to impose your religion on others then you would be opposed to that.
When religionists say secular humanism is a religion they betray their ignorance and their bad intentions. To say that a ideology that rejects supernaturalism is a religion is an obvious manipulation of language to get religious people to reject anything coming from secular humanism as coming from a “false religion.” The manipulation is obvious.
f.g.
P.S. Cthulhu – that is an interesting tag for someone arguing (apparently?) for the accepted presence of religion in government … Lovecraft’s fantastic epitome of evil.
at June 23, 2005 10:22 AM
Per f.g.:
"Your allusion to violence is interesting. There is nothing violent about “freedom from religion” unless a religious person puts it in there."
The analogy of swinging one's arms as an illustration of the limits on rights is a long-standing one. As for "nothing violent" about the "freedom from religion," I could recommend several histories of the French Revolution or the Bolshevik revolt, two "freedom from religion" efforts that were far from "non-violent."
f.g:
"…Secular Deism…First Amendment … church and state …
Regardless of what religionists might want, the non-religious are guaranteed a government free of religious dogma. If you really want freedom for everyone that is what you would want. If you want to impose your religion on others then you would be opposed to that."
I do not cite religionist's wants, I merely point out both historical and current fact. The fact of the matter is is that "In God we trust," the fine print you will find on American coinage, is not going anywhere anytime soon. Likewise, I find that the enforcement of "freedom from religion / seperation of Church and State," is dubious, in so far as it tends to be biased and selective in nature, targeting only certain religions. Hence, no nativity on the town square, but a street festooned with Eid banners.
f.g. "When religionists say secular humanism is a religion they betray their ignorance and their bad intentions. To say that a ideology that rejects supernaturalism is a religion is an obvious manipulation of language to get religious people to reject anything coming from secular humanism as coming from a “false religion.” The manipulation is obvious."
You attempt infer that which was not implied -- a common failing. The only point in my post is that your arguement has more than a few holes in it, both legally and historically speaking. Either you misunderstood the content of my post or seek to set up a strawman that has nothing to do with what I wrote. However, to answer your post, while "secular humanism" is not a religion per se, its philosophical tenets are sufficiently dogmatic and its adherents sufficiently zealous in their behavior that to accuse it of religious-like trappings is not wholly unreasonable.
f.g.: "P.S. Cthulhu – that is an interesting tag for someone arguing (apparently?) for the accepted presence of religion in government … Lovecraft’s fantastic epitome of evil."
Actually, that Cthulhu and his bretheren were "evil deities" is a common misperception, being, arguably, neither. "Evil" is, particularly to a "secular humanist" like yourself, a relative point, lacking any moral poles to attache yourself to. Cthulhu, in the tales, is not evil, he is alien and, where humanity is concerned, utterly apathetic. He cares little and knows less about his cult. Likewise, he is an alien being that, while powerful and perhaps mistaken for a god by primitives, is not all-powerful, omniscient and the like. He is simply an alien entity bound by different physical rules that appear metaphysical to the human observer. As for my use of it as a tag-line, it distinctive, rarely taken prior to my arrival and shorter than "Nyarlathotep."
As for religion in government, I would point out that so long as religion has a role in culture, such as societal mores and the like, you will have a defacto presence of religion in government. As for my acceptance, it is more a matter of acknowledging reality and history, rather than a "stamp of approval."
at June 23, 2005 11:07 AM
There is a common knee jerk response regarding the Christian right, that their questioning of the gay lifestyle is motivated only by irrational prejudice.
However, there are legitimate concerns regarding some portions of the gay lifestyle that have been raised by these same groups.
For example, is it really good for children (this should NOT be about the needs of adults) to be raised in a fatherless or motherless household?
What about the vast allocation of resources to AIDS, when it is a disease that is spread in most cases by irresponsible behavior (that can apply to both gays and straights), and the outright refusal of many advocacy groups to accept that monogamous sexual relationships are the best way to stop the spread of the disease (witness Uganda).
What about efforts by certain gay rights groups to lower age of consent laws (over my dead body when it comes to mine or anyone else's children!)?
What type of society will we have if heterosexual marriage is no longer the norm (look at Sweden, for example)?
These are all fair and important questions that should be addressed regardless of PC or hurt feelings.
The call for violence against gays, on the other hand, is irresponsible and repellent.
Posted by: treehugger
at June 23, 2005 11:19 AM
The group held signs saying:
"Today Homosexuality: Tomorrow: Pedophilia; What’s Next? Bestiality?"
Homosexuality is rife in the Arab/Muslim world but they are discreet about it.
Pedophilia: Yes, the man Islam teaches Muslims to emulate was a pedophile who had intercourse with a nine-year-old girl.
Bestiality: Ayatollah Khomeini wrote a book on ethics called 'Tahrirosla-something or other' in which he okayed it to make mad passionate love to various beasts of the field such as goats and camels I believe.
Posted by: Elephant at June 23, 2005 11:48 AM
lacking any moral poles to attache yourself to
Ugggh. An incorrect assumption on your part. Ignorance can be overcome however.
And b.t.w., the motto "In God We Trust" was not adopted for use on U.S. paper currency until 1957.
Ha! You accuse me of "lacking any moral poles" yet you rationalize the nature of Cthulhu as amoral. Ha, ha, ha. I mean, that is rib-cracking, pants wetting funny.
As for religion in government, I would point out that so long as religion has a role in culture, such as societal mores and the like, you will have a defacto presence of religion in government. As for my acceptance, it is more a matter of acknowledging reality and history, rather than a "stamp of approval."
Well I agree with you there to a great extent. However, morals and ethics do exist outside of religious dogma regardless of what the gurus, masters, and preachers want you to believe. The worship of invisible gods and adherence to their supposedly communicated laws is not necessary for human beings to govern themselves. Also, it is good to remember that all the morals, wisdom, and idiocy found in “holy writings” of all flavors is strictly human in origin to begin with. The pretense that some ‘higher power’ has dictated these things is the height of arrogance and foolishness. We need to stop looking up and start looking at each other or in other words we should take care of ourselves rather than looking for help from someone who is and behaves pretty much as you have described Cthulhu.
I don't think we're that far apart on this. I understand what you're saying.
f.g.
Posted by: f.g. at June 23, 2005 12:06 PM
f.g.:
Your point about the Christian right is well taken -- that very, very few among them wish to take matters into their own hands. And those few are probably mentally unbalanced persons who, whatever movement they ended up gravitating towards, would be predisposed to violence anyway. As well, not that I have attended any churches or listened to TV preachers, but I rather doubt any of them stand up in their pulpits or otherwise spew the bile and spleen that Freedom House, MEMRI and other organizations have reported on being the "norm" for various Muslim clerics.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at June 23, 2005 12:57 PM
Chthonic, chthulu, whatever-
Without secular restraint on the religious influences in government, theocratic rule has a troubling tendency toward a 'Shaira Law' system of some sort, unbound by reason (since the "Heavenly Lord"'s -and their "Books" are always "Absolute", "Omniscient", and "Perfect" Examples for human law and behavior).
I prefer a human-wrangled code over any Deity's, because, once you let the camel's nose of dogma under the judicial tent, you allow the barely-self-discovered human ego to pretend to god-like powers, and begin issues fatwas.
I just don't trust the incompletely-understood human intelligence in this domain. Or its self-proclaimed 'divine' perceptions of the Ultimate and the Ineffable. (A creature that can't find a decent matching tie for a dress shirt leaves me a little dubious of its ability to plumb the Mind of God.)
So, unless you are for enabling the mullahs, imams and ayatollahs to gain an insidious way to infiltrate our Constitutional system- (in parallel with more familiar "Christian" ambitions for legal rule-making) you will have to defend the seperation of church and state. Even if it was only a line written offhand by Jefferson after the fact.
It remains basic good sense when dealing with a creature that tends toward extremism, and, as Lord Acton put it, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Religious power is too tempting and too absolute to let into secular law.
Keep it in you church, temple, etc., and proselytize with your vote, within Constitutional limits. But don't try to turn the successful secular state into an onramp for the Sharia Caliphate, however unintentionally.
The road to hell is ALSO paved with the law of unintended consequences.
As long as the wall between divine and earthly laws remains strong, the Muslim infil-traitors will not be able to force their will on this freedom-loving nation that stands against the idea of a theocratic global domination by despots.
("In God We Trust. All Others Pay Cash." is what I'd like to see on our currency... but maybe we'd need bigger coins.)
Posted by: BigSleep at June 23, 2005 1:18 PM
waterdragon52,
Well I have attended many different Christian churches and services over the years. I have never heard a call for violence from the pulpit even in the more radical congregations. Like I said, their position is that God will take care of the sinners in his own way and in his own good time. And they from time to time, like Jerry F. is known to do, will loudly proclaim the righteous judgements of the Lawd on the wicked. Sometimes somewhat gleefully at that, which always leaves me nauseous. Why would a person, allegedly "filled with love" not take issue with throwing folks into lakes of fire and such. It is a mystery of personal honesty to a great degree.
Personally, I always quoted the "Vengence is mine, saith the Lord" to myself and just let it go any time I felt the desire to "get even" with someone over something. It is always easier to let someone else take care of things like that than to take care of it ourselves isn't it?
On topic comment: "Your terrorists are our heroes" is a declaration of solidarity and support for the murders carried out by terrorists. These people need to be charged with aiding and abetting terrorism. Let's see 'em put that on their website.
f.g.
True freedom, freedom to deside who you are and what you do in the world, is everything. Those who wish to dictate to us who we are and what we can do based on their religious or secular ideologies are slave-masters looking for slaves. Don't be a slave. Be a free human being. Think for yourself.
at June 23, 2005 1:25 PM
lacking any moral poles to attache yourself to
Ugggh. An incorrect assumption on your part. Ignorance can be overcome however.
=================
Is it? What moral absolutes does an atheist truly have? Without fear, you at best have a mutually agreed upon set of rules, one that has proven rather mutable in more recent decades.
F.g.: "And b.t.w., the motto "In God We Trust" was not adopted for use on U.S. paper currency until 1957."
Hence my use of the rather specific word "coinage..."
F.g.: "Ha! You accuse me of "lacking any moral poles" yet you rationalize the nature of Cthulhu as amoral. Ha, ha, ha. I mean, that is rib-cracking, pants wetting funny."
The concept you are groping for is "ironic."
And it is, frankly, deliberate.
And if you read Lovecraft's letters and essays, you would find out that I am correct -- the "deities" of Lovecraft's writing were, in essence, manifestations of the uncaring universe, to whom man was little more than a temporary infestation on a minor planet.
================
As for religion in government, I would point out that so long as religion has a role in culture, such as societal mores and the like, you will have a defacto presence of religion in government. As for my acceptance, it is more a matter of acknowledging reality and history, rather than a "stamp of approval."
F.g.: "Well I agree with you there to a great extent. However, morals and ethics do exist outside of religious dogma regardless of what the gurus, masters, and preachers want you to believe."
Do they? Or are they the tattered remains of the civilizing veneer that religion -- fear of divine retribution and eternal punishment, etc., have placed over man's more violent and bestial nature? How does the child learn? The child doth imitate. The "why" of a behavior may be lost, but the what and how tend to linger.
f.g. : "The worship of invisible gods and adherence to their supposedly communicated laws is not necessary for human beings to govern themselves."
Now that such things as "thou shalt not kill" has been codified and woven into the gestalt consciousness of society, perhaps. However, there was likely a time (and perhaps, even now, places) where such a civilizing device is needed...
f.g. : "Also, it is good to remember that all the morals, wisdom, and idiocy found in “holy writings” of all flavors is strictly human in origin to begin with. The pretense that some ‘higher power’ has dictated these things is the height of arrogance and foolishness."
Again, you seem to forget that equally grand arrogance, atrocity and idiocy can be found in Marx, Robespierre, Pol Pot and a host of aethistic "wise men" and "higher powers." Sometimes, an aethist is simply a self-made man who has become too infatuated with his creator.
f.g.: " We need to stop looking up and start looking at each other or in other words we should take care of ourselves rather than looking for help from someone who is and behaves pretty much as you have described Cthulhu. "
I have found navel-gazing to be rather fruitless. I have little problem with God, per se... the Church is an entirely different matter. Most days, I prefer to think of myself as militantly agnostic -- I don't know and neither do you.
f.g.: "I don't think we're that far apart on this. I understand what you're saying.
No, we're not, although I do find you superior-sounding tone regarding religion to be out of place for someone who claims they simply want their rights protect. Remember, right conflict and need to be balanced. One of the things that amuses me to no end is the secular liberal who will take the attitude of "if you don't like it, don't look at it," with regard to the play Corpus Christi or the "Springer Opera,' two works of "art" insulting to religion, both of which usually play in publicly subsidized theaters or on publically owned airwaves, yet screech when they perceive something horribly insulting and threatens, say, a creche on public land. If you don't like it, don't look at it.
Posted by: Cthulhu at June 23, 2005 1:38 PM
Although it is clear that certain Christian groups strongly disapprove of Christianity, to my knowledge Falwell et al have not advocated executing or using anything akin to stoning in the name of Christianity. Certainly they could not be Christians if they would.
There is no institution in Christianity that parallels Jihad that punishes in this manner. Unlike the Koran, the Gospels do not support such behavior.
Posted by: epg
at June 23, 2005 4:02 PM
Over the years there have been special interest groups that have twisted the concept of
a separation of "Church and State" , this was done
during the founding days of the 13 Colonies because those opposed to the "Churh of England"
system wanted to break off from the British style of rule in a Monarchy.
The separation clause prevented a foreign
citizen(From England at that time in history)
from coming to America to have a Son or Daughter
that's in line to the Throne in England by birth Rights, this clause stopped any chance of a Royal Family member to rise to power in America and declare it for Britian as a Monarchy ruled Nation.
Also the "Freedom of speech" clause was to prevent any punishment by the state to any person
with an opposing view of Governments methods of
rule or Policies that existed under the British system at that time.
Today we have people perverting the intents and willfully doing harm to others by trying to suppress religion,or even publically attack it with overtly abusive tirades of hate and unfounded fears of domination by a religion.
I use the word "Unfounded" to separate it from "Well-Founded" fears of a religion that makes its followers hate and kill perceived "Unbelievers" in the eyes of THEIR version of God,the new "Catch Phrase" that uses the "Phobia" or "Phobe" as a suffix to their religions title to silence or defame other through psychological terrorism.
You are not free to make fake 911 calls or set off fire alarms as a form of protest,also libel Laws are there for the hateful people to be brought to Justice from unfounded claims made in public that cause hardship to others or a person.
CAIR and their ilk have lawyers that push the boundries on Free-speech and use the Courts to bankrupt people they attack for only trying to exercise a similar Right of free-speech that CAIR demands as a American or person in America.
America has a movement in California to allow Governor Arnold to be a President by changing the laws for only Citizens born in the USA that can run for that position,and that will be a major mistake because the next push will be like the one in Canada where a Lawyer from Jamaica
that refuses to become a Citizen is demanding
that non-Citizens be allowed to vote under the protection in the Charter for minorities such as non-Canadians that can't vote.
Time to take back NorthAmerica and show the door to those that have issues with our form of democracy and values for protecting humnan life
form Nazi style religions or groups that insist
it's their RIGHT to oppress and kill people.
at June 23, 2005 4:06 PM
Sorry that's
"Protecting human life FROM Nazi style religions
or groups"
Must be dylexia, I should start a club
so we can all untie together and set up a website to each ohter.
Dylexic's Untie!
at June 23, 2005 4:14 PM
The concept you are groping for is "ironic."
I wasn't groping for anything. What a snide remark. Sure you’re correct about Lovecraft. However, it is should be quite obvious from reading his tales that the C is evil in a big way from a human standpoint. And since that is the only standpoint I have … and I am taking the definition of evil as: “That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction.”
Again, you seem to forget.. [Numerous notorious individuals]
Naming bad atheists from history is an extremely lame way to try to make your point that really doesn’t work whatever your real point might have been. Whatever you read into it, I wasn’t making a disparaging remark about scripture. I was pointing out that all knowledge, morals, wisdom, etc. that is supposedly divine origin does in fact have an earthly source.
fear of divine retribution and eternal punishment, etc., have placed over man's more violent and bestial nature?
If you think that the fear of divine retribution and eternal punishment is necessary for human development you are quite frankly deluded if not a complete fool. This type of idiotic thinking belongs in the Middle Ages and flourishes in the Middle East.
although I do find you superior-sounding tone regarding religion to be out of place for someone who claims they simply want their rights protect.
Now that statement is ‘ironic’ my friend. Here we are in a forum dedicated to the discussion of how a religion is threatening the civil rights of everyone on the planet and you think I may have a “superior-sounding tone regarding religion” that you think is “out of place for someone who claims they simply want their rights protect[ed].” Pardon me if I don’t kowtow to current religious political correctness.
Most days, I prefer to think of myself as militantly agnostic -- I don't know and neither do you.
Well it should be obvious to the most casual observer that no one on the planet does, but for some reason it escapes a lot of people. That doesn’t keep arrogant evil (see above definition) men from using the ignorance and needs of humanity to manipulate and control them through religion.
f.g
at June 23, 2005 5:06 PM
With regards to the debate between f.g and Cthulhu, everybody believes in something, we all have a worldview of who, how, what and why.
And Cthulhu is right, those beliefs permeate into laws, politics and education. It is ironic that the "secular" types have the audacity to cry "separation of church and state", yet they are quite happy to push their views on all and sundry. Don’t believe me? Just turn on the TV.
We see it every year at Christmas – “don't you dare put up that scene of the Baby Christ, that’s pushing religion!” But it is OK to put up the Pagan Christmas Tree, the Pagan Mistletoe, the Pagan Easter Eggs, the Pagan Easter Bunny, oh and lets not forget Santa, that advertising genius adopted by Coca Cola! If its not Christian is OK, and that attitude is helping the vehicle of Islam.
The USA used to be Christian - get over it all you atheists, one would think that you'd be happy that the Humanists are now in the majority. (Mind you, a quick look at the crime stats over the decades, shows a marked jump that coincides with people leaving the Church, and believing in secular "Science". You Humanists must be proud of that one!)
The main secularists ammunition against "God", is the FAITH OF EVOLUTION. No one is yet to actually observe evolution happening. As I was taught, science is actually supposed to be something you can test, observe. Evolution does not fulfill these criteria, and hence is not scientific ‘fact’; it is a secular BELIEF that is used in our educational institutions to teach “without a doubt” that god doesn’t exist and a "monkey is our uncle".
So our secularists push their faith in our science classes, Evolution, but don't you dare suggest any alternatives or you will be howled out of existence, welcome to the “new dark age” of science (despite the fact many top scientists - atheists included - have major misgivings about evolution).
From our beliefs we get our laws, no matter whether we believe in "Goo to You", or the Bible which has a 5000 year heritage of guiding civilizations (I wonder if evolution will last that long?).
Hence this is the reason we need to take Islam seriously. The Christians and the Secularists and the Homo's and the lefty's etc can all argue till we are blue in the face. That's all we generally seem to do (thankfully).
Unlike Christianity which says, "here is the good news do you want it?" and that's where it finishes, or the secularists/humanist who does much the same and will generally tolerate the Christian, Islam says, "Islam is the way!, Do you want it? No? Well either pay the tax or die!!!"
This attack on the gays and other minorities will have a benefit - that hopefully Islam will burn too many bridges and isolate itself.
Oh and when the West does become the “East” (Islamic), those Homo’s will probably wish that they were back in the “evil” “Christian” society again.
at June 23, 2005 9:28 PM
Hugh: "CAIR and other Muslims would prefer that such sentiments [flag destruction] are not displayed in quite such dramatic, attention-getting fashion. Not now. Not yet.
King: What's with the constant pessamistic banter, Hugh? I hear the Death Star anthem being played avery time I read your doomsday posts. This group is a radical group and the Islamic community in NYC has openly denounced their behaviors. Even when this happens, you manage to spin it to make it evil. Sheesh!
Gary: "I'm sure kt is well-read on this topic."
King: What's with the constant tanting Gary? You are either taking teeny pot-shots buried in your messages or being a cute little cheerleader when someone else takes issue with me.
Zilcho: "Now, we can add gays to the list of groups of people who have begun to feel the wrath of Islamic violence, bigotry and intolerance."
King: If you think for one second that I will allow this gem to slip by you're nuttier than I even thought!
Christians have treated homosexuals as second class citizens for centuries. UNDENIABLE FACT. The Bible has many verses denouncing homosexuality. FACT. Christians have read these verses, interpreted them radically, and have killed, beaten, tortured and as I type this, are legislating homosexuals from being legally married in the US. DENIED, ZILCHO.
Cthulhu to F.G.: "although I do find you superior-sounding tone...."
King: Don't worry, f.g., I got this same lecture from our friend just yesterday.
f.g. "That doesn’t keep arrogant evil (see above definition) men from using the ignorance and needs of humanity to manipulate and control them through religion."
King: Agreed 100%, well put.
at June 23, 2005 9:42 PM
KingTolerance, and your point about Homosexuality is? That the Bible is a book of absolutes, and not a "all things are equal" book?(see Marx for that one)Or that Homo's want to force their way upon our heterosexual community that has been in the majority since time began? What about the cases of Homo's bashing hetro's who refuse sex with them?
I for one will happily accept Homo's having access to the religious institution of marriage when the Homo's pass the following scientific test of having children naturally (after all - marraige and the family is the basis of all society, be it secular, Islamic, Christian or other):
Island One: Fill it with 10,000 lesbians (make sure none are pregnant before going on the Island).
Island Two: Fill it with 10,000 homosexuals male.
Island Three: Just to show I'm not biased we will have a just three pairs of heterosexuals. This should certainly put the odds in the Homosexual's favour as to who can reproduce as nature intended.
The group that naturally reproduces can have full access to marriage and children. As for homo's doing what they do behind closed doors - thats between them and god (so long as its consenting adults). But don't you dare suggest they can have children in their little social experiment.
I know where I'll put my money as to which group will have children - as nature or God (depending on what you believe) intended. Doesn't matter if you believe in evolution (we have evolved as hetrosexual beings) or God (God created heterosexual beings) its not natural that homo's have access to kids - and giving them marriage is just one step in that direction.
Oh I can hear it now - not all Hetro's are good parents? Whoopy do! Neither would all homo's be either - but at least I know what is natural and what isn't.
You want tolerance for all? Go live in a Marxist state like China, where there is a real Utopia - or Cuba. The Bible discriminates between good and evil. Moral relativism doesn't exist in the Bible. Get over it!
Let me guess, you would like the States and other Western countries like Australia to legalize gay marriage? Guess what KingTolerance where they have done this in the EU, Hetro couples no longer get married themselves, and guess what the end result HAS been – a negative birth rate – as you would say FACT! How have the Euro’s solved this? Gee I Dunno? By massive amounts of Muslim immigration.
I ask you KingTolerance, would you rather live with a dogmatic Christian society, or the Utopia of a Muslim society? If you choose the Christian one – then stop whining. If not, move to Saudi Arabia. I can only assume by your support of Homo marriage, that you indirectly wish to contribute to the Muslim takeover of the West via immigration and the Birth Rate.
at June 23, 2005 11:58 PM
well this actually brings up a slightly interesting arguement to me being as that i don't believe i have the right to tell someone what they do is right or wrong if it does not involve me. amazing how the wrong side always seems to gain an advantage eh? especially when you think about how they get away with so much by brandishing anyone that knows anything an islamophobe. with this in mind i wonder if i could get a t shirt made (my wife will kill me but it would be worth it) stating the following.
Islam: allowed to slaughter your men, rape and kill your women, and enslave your children as directed by god
yes i know this may be in slightly poor taste but from what i can tell in reference hits the nail on the head
Posted by: Vardos the Dark Putz at June 24, 2005 3:10 AM
dangit forgot to make it PC have to cite which versus of the Qu'ran give them that option.
Posted by: Vardos the Dark Putz at June 24, 2005 3:10 AM
Vardos the Dark Putz - when I was holidaying in my old "stomping ground" of the Gold Coast in Australia, I was shocked at how many Peace Lovers came to the Bikini Clad sexual city of Sin in Queensland Australia for a holiday. When I was a kid there was none of them to be seen.
I was the same - I wanted a T Shirt that read,
On the frnt: "Mohammed!" (with a picture of Bin Laden)
And then on the back: "Enjoyed sex with nine year olds"
My wife wasn't impressed. But man I'd love to get one. Don't know any screen printers do you?
Posted by: 3rdtimelucky at June 24, 2005 5:35 AM
As for the hostility from muslim extremists directed at Kristine Withers, an openly gay woman, the silence from the gay advocacy circus is...
...deafening.
Indulge me in a little PC white-washing (pun intended): lets say the perpetrators were, instead, white Christian fundamentalists who "pulled the rug out from under her" so to speak, and knocked her to the curb. Not muslim bullies, but Christians.
Care to wager how many gay-rights groups would be out there right now, playing the victimization card for every media outlet they could find? My guess is that we'd be swamped with front page headlines along the lines of "Christian Zealots thump gay NY." The NY Times would run the story for weeks. Yet, upon searching their site, I found no references to the Islamic Thinkers' confrontation with Ms. Withers.
In other words, the muzzies get a pass. Once again, we have Political Correctness gone awry.
My advice to Ms. Withers would be to arm yourself, my dear. Given the fact that she lives in the same neighborhood where these ingrates "operate" and given what we know about islamic intolerance, I would definitely fear the late-night knock on the door.
Posted by: dead_shot at June 24, 2005 6:49 AM
well i would like to post my sincere apology about what i said earlier as i realize it was both in poor context and a little off the deep end (sorry heat kills me and being in a building with no windows in england makes me rather on the toasty side). so i wish to apologize if i have accidentally offended anyone with my smartalec snide remarks.
they don't call me a putz for nothing...
Posted by: Vardos the Dark Putz at June 24, 2005 7:40 AM
Popinjay!
Hi! I didnt notice your latest anal warbling in my direction hence no response until now. Suffice to say your latest flatulence is of a piece with your generalised ad hominem, tu-coque idiot's moral relativism that seems to be sparked whenever the bigotry of your religion is highlighted and you brought me more amusement with your regular petulant stupidity.
Now, you Prancing Popinjay and protector of the bigotry of Islam, I take my leave and await your latest satirical fartings. Of course, the issue of the inherent bigotry and fascism of your religion in its morally decrepit present state stands, so bring on the tears of pain and idiots savant moral relativism, and Allah-hu-Akbar!
;-)
at June 24, 2005 9:10 AM
The USA used to be Christian - get over it all you atheists
America - It's not a religion thing, it's a freedom thing. Get over it you believers in the supernatural. :)
And like I've stated here before, a society basied on Christian values is certainly preferable to an Islamic based one, even for non-believers.
However, a theocracy of any flavor, is just another form of autocratic government and is nothing more than tyranny, something any true Christian (or at least the kind I am most familiar with) would oppose.
While acknowledging the role of religion in the development of society it is not necessary or desirable to allow one religion political control over a nation. That should be obvious even to people who believe in the spirit world by now. Religion has no place in government. However, government should acknowledge, ensure, and defend the right of every individual to worship (or not) as they see fit so long as it does not infringe upon the civil rights of others. That is what America is all about.
f.g.
Posted by: f.g.
at June 24, 2005 9:30 AM
fg: The concept you are groping for is "ironic."
I wasn't groping for anything. What a snide remark.
Touche... yesterday's lesson -- never post with a headache... its makes me more of a pedant than usual...
fg: Sure you’re correct about Lovecraft. However, it is should be quite obvious from reading his tales that the C is evil in a big way from a human standpoint. And since that is the only standpoint I have … and I am taking the definition of evil as: “That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction.”
He is not evil, insofar as there is no malice or intent to do ill. He is no more evil than a hurricane or an asteroid impact.
fg: "Again, you seem to forget.. [Numerous notorious individuals] Naming bad atheists from history is an extremely lame way to try to make your point that really doesn’t work whatever your real point might have been. Whatever you read into it, I wasn’t making a disparaging remark about scripture. I was pointing out that all knowledge, morals, wisdom, etc. that is supposedly divine origin does in fact have an earthly source."
Your broad-stroke commentary also alternately implies and states a superiority in the atheistic persppective, touching upon such comments as your "Never underestimate the stupidity of people to believe impossible things and rush to their deaths for ridiculous reasons." You make disparaging comments re: people of faith without an example, broad-brushing the entire population.
On the other hand, we have my examples of athesists who, unburdened on the "ridiculous reasons" and "stupidity" of their faith committing cold-blooded atrocities. They were no more elightened or less dogmatic for their atheism, which are two themes you have been stressing in your posts. Atheism isn't superior, it merely has a different colour bunting hanging about the hall. Dogma differs, but the arrogance remains the same -- "I'm right, you're an idiot."
fg selectively quotes: "fear of divine retribution and eternal punishment, etc., have placed over man's more violent and bestial nature?
If you think that the fear of divine retribution and eternal punishment is necessary for human development you are quite frankly deluded if not a complete fool. This type of idiotic thinking belongs in the Middle Ages and flourishes in the Middle East. "
Ah, now come the insults and the selective quoting... If you had quoted the whole passage, the fact that my point was that these are the contributors of modern law. Sure, the religious aspect may have withered away, but the underlying restriction -- "Thou shalt not kill," for example, remains. I point out that much of what was religious taboo has become secular law and you, by selective quoting, turn it upside down. Civilization, f.g, against the long history of mankind, is, thus far, a fad.
Ancient man, not equipped with the "why," created explanations from whole cloth -- but they fit the need -- they created prohibitions against certain behaviors. As man has become more jaded, these prohibitions and their celestial punishments have lost their impact. As for sure fear of punishment being necessary for civilization, why do street gangs have minors commit the worst crime? Could it be that, as minors, they are generally punished to a lesser degree than adults? Fear of punishment/retribution is a gloriously civilizing device, but only when the punishments are carried out. On a practical level, this is why NYC was such a cesspit in the seventies -- linguine-spined liberals who wanted to "rehabilitate" rather than "punish" criminals created revolving door prisons. Without some level of fear of retribution, man tends to slouch and saunter his way towards what you would call "evil."
fg quotes: "although I do find you superior-sounding tone regarding religion to be out of place for someone who claims they simply want their rights protect.
Now that statement is ‘ironic’ my friend. "
No, lets not sugar-coat it, it was snide. And for that I apoligize -- as I said, posting with a headache = no good. However, your posts do ring with both a disparaging of religion and a glorification of the secular atheist. My point in this series of posts is that your rights do not supercede mine or anyone elses, no matter how superior you perceive your beliefs. If stridency of belief was a major factor, we'd all be bowing towards Mecca. Likewise, a great deal of what you accept as fact is nto support by the historical record -- the first amendment is not the absolute your believe it to be. The "seperation of Church and State" is an interpretation that has its roots in a pro-Protestant / anti-Catholic mindset and it would take only one durable court decision (durable meaning survives appeal) to toss that interpretation out the window.
fg: "Here we are in a forum dedicated to the discussion of how a religion is threatening the civil rights of everyone on the planet and you think I may have a “superior-sounding tone regarding religion” that you think is “out of place for someone who claims they simply want their rights protect[ed].” Pardon me if I don’t kowtow to current religious political correctness."
To frell with political correctness... The fact of the matter is that Islam, in and of itself, does nothing to threaten you. The apathy of its mainstream and the radicalism of its fringe dreams of threatening you. They *like* your civil rights -- and will gleefully use them against you, either to incite their apathetic co-religionists or to attack you directly.
Most days, I prefer to think of myself as militantly agnostic -- I don't know and neither do you.
Well it should be obvious to the most casual observer that no one on the planet does, but for some reason it escapes a lot of people. That doesn’t keep arrogant evil (see above definition) men from using the ignorance and needs of humanity to manipulate and control them through religion.
f.g
Again, how do you explain the atheism of the Khmer Rouge, the Nazis, the Communists, etc.?
Arrogance and ignorance are not seated wholly upon the religious. Like I said above, same attitudes, same mind-sent, different dogma and different trappings.
In an arguement about civil rights, attempting to set your beliefs as supreme is inherently contradictory -- you wish to impose, lest they impose upon you... sounds alot like the pot and the kettle on that front.
at June 24, 2005 10:00 AM
Cthulhu,
Point taken, take this a clarification on my part.
People do bad things and people believe in the stupidest things, Atheist or religionist. No one can argue that. I have never pretended otherwise. However, it is the presupposition of many people that religion is benign and its pursuit admirable simply because in some manifestations, religion purports to cultivate our better natures if not direct communion with a creator god. Experience has taught the world otherwise in a big way in recent years. Religion, ideology, and politics are all one big blur now if it ever was anything else.
Personally, I find fault with religion on the basic philosophical principle of being true to myself. Religion asks me to believe in the existence of ‘certain things’ based upon a trust in ancient records and the beliefs of our ancestors that my experience cannot support. When I reached the age where I was able to objectively survey my life somewhat I had to either admit that things don’t work like we were taught in Sunday school or deny my own experience and ‘pretend’ reality is different from what it was or that somehow the difference didn’t matter. Belief in the supernatural boils down to experience vs. faith and hope, you have to choose one over the other. I have chosen to believe that what I see and experience trumps teachings about the supernatural passed on from my ancient ancestors.
The capacity for human beings to firmly believe in the “rightness” of political, religious, or philosophical concepts that ultimately causes harm, misfortune, or destruction (a.k.a. evil) has been routinely demonstrated throughout history. For this reason we should each examine ourselves and our beliefs carefully (as though in preparation for communion) and ensure we are being honest with ourselves not only about their interpretations but about our motivations for believing them as well. This is something that should happen routinely on a personal as well as national level. That is what this atheist really feels about it regardless of my poor use of language before now.
f.g.
at June 24, 2005 10:58 AM
‘Islamic Thinkers’ Menace Gay N.Y.,"
Wow. "Clash of the PC Titans". Can't wait to see how this one comes out.
Posted by: saychel at June 24, 2005 5:17 PM
f.g - American used to be a Christian society.
As in it was the main belief system of the people of that country, not as in a theocracy - I never said it was a theocracy.
Today atheism would be the main belief. Christianity would be second with Islam quickly closing the gap.
Cthulhu - awesome post!
Posted by: 3rdtimelucky at June 25, 2005 11:51 PM
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)