Dhimmi Watch: UN moves to kill free speech, passes resolution against "defamation of religions"

December 29, 2007

UN moves to kill free speech, passes resolution against "defamation of religions"

The OIC pushed it through. "Defamation of religions," of course, means "speaking the truth about the elements of Islamic teaching that jihadists use to incite to violence."

"Islamic Bloc Scores 'Defamation of Religions' Resolution at UN," by Patrick Goodenough for CNSNews.com (thanks to Jamie Glazov):

(CNSNews.com) - Alongside a resolution adopted by the U.N. General Assembly this week calling for a moratorium on the death penalty, the world body passed a raft of other human rights-related motions. One of them, introduced by Islamic nations, focuses on combating the "defamation of religions."
Resolutions on the human rights situation in North Korea and Iran also passed, although dozens of countries -- including human rights violators Cuba, Sudan, Syria and Zimbabwe -- voted against the motions.

An annual resolution on "the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination" also passed by an overwhelming margin, with only the United States, Israel, and three small Pacific island nations voting "no." There were four abstentions.

The motion on defamation of religions has been a priority for the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) since 9/11. It took on new impetus following a Danish newspaper's publication in 2005 of cartoons satirizing Mohammed.

Introduced by Pakistan on behalf of the OIC, it passed on Tuesday by a 108-51 margin, with 25 abstentions. As with many of the other votes, the U.S. lined up with democracies in Europe, Asia and elsewhere against developing nations, including repressive regimes.

Although the resolution refers to defamation of "religions," Islam is the only religion named in the text, which also takes a swipe at counter-terrorism security measures.

It expresses alarm about "discrimination" and "laws that stigmatize groups of people belonging to certain religions and faiths under a variety of pretexts relating to security and illegal immigration."

In other words, as far as the UN is concerned, it is now wrong to resist the jihad.

Muslim minorities are subjected to "ethnic and religious profiling ... in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001," it says.
The resolution decries "the negative projection of Islam in the media" and voices "deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism."

You see, this association is all the fault of non-Muslims. The fact that Muslims themselves routinely commit violent acts and justify them with reference to Islamic teachings is a fact we are not supposed to, indeed not allowed to, notice.

OIC secretary-general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu earlier this month addressed an international conference on "Islamophobia," held in Turkey, and told the gathering that freedom of expression was being used as a cover in the West to promote anti-Islam sentiment.
The OIC soon will release its first-ever annual report on "Islamophobia."

'Flawed and divisive'

On a number of the General Assembly resolutions passed Tuesday, the U.S. stood in the minority, including one dealing with practices that contribute to "fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance," and another on a report on preparations by the U.N.'s Human Rights Council for a major conference on racism, scheduled for 2009.

The international conference is intended to review progress achieved on a program of action adopted at an earlier racism conference, held in Durban, South Africa in 2001.

The Durban event was marred by controversy, with attempts spearheaded by Arab and Muslim states to equate Zionism with racism. The U.S. government sent a low-level delegation and then recalled it midway in protest against the attacks on Israel.

On Tuesday, only the U.S., Israel and the Marshall Islands voted against the resolution on preparations for the Durban review conference.

In an earlier explanation of vote, American envoy Grover Joseph Rees told member-states that although the U.S. supported the stated objectives of Durban gathering, "the outcomes of the conference were deeply flawed and divisive."

"The resolution now before us endorses that flawed outcome and is therefore itself seriously problematic," he said.

Indeed.

Posted by Robert at December 29, 2007 9:23 AM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us

Comments
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)

"In other words, as far as the UN is concerned, it is now wrong to resist the jihad."

I look forward to the day when, to show their appreciation for all these useful idiots' efforts on their part, those "slay and are slain" in the way of the illah blow up the UN building.

The UN should be cordially invited to leave the US. I'd even help them pack.

To the UN: I abhor jihad. I hate jihadists. I will resist jihad, and kill all the jihadists I can, when that day comes.

Islam is a hateful ideology. Islam is a misogynist, repressive, non-movement which encourages suicide and murder.

Anyone wearing a burqa should be subject to a strip search. I say "anyone", because these Mohammedan men, masters of disguise, like to wear them, too. Burqas should be outlawed in the United States. The husbands of women who wear them should be charged with spousal abuse.

There is no "allah", and Mohammed was a bloodthirsty feeb with delusions of grandeur.

Did I forget anything? Okay, come and arrest me, for defaming Islam.

Posted by: Abscedere

at December 29, 2007 9:52 AM

"...The fact that Muslims themselves routinely commit violent acts and justify them with reference to Islamic teachings is a fact ..."

....yes!....IT IS....INDEED A FACT....!!

Posted by: exsgtbrown

at December 29, 2007 10:00 AM

Abscedere: I look forward to the day when, to show their appreciation for all these useful idiots' efforts on their part, those "slay and are slain" in the way of the illah blow up the UN building.

Mujahidin have blown up UN buildings in Baghdad and, quite recently, Algiers:

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Dec18/0,4670,AlgeriaBombing,00.html

Security on Manhattan is holding them off, for the time being. "Too stupid to live" isn't just an expression, it's an observable condition.

Posted by: ElderlyZionist

at December 29, 2007 10:37 AM

We have to get out of the UN .

Posted by: GrennBeck

at December 29, 2007 10:52 AM

Executive Order 2008-01-01:

"Whereas its canonical doctrines call for perpetual and total warfare against free men, rejection of all man-made law, and creation of a uni-cultural totalitarian world empire, the inherently and violently agressive global movement commonly referred to as Islam, whose adherents are referred to as Muslims, for purposes of U.S. law and administration shall henceforth be reclassified from religion to hostile political cult.

"Whereas this cult is a direct and permanent threat to the Constitution of the United States, all privileges and accomodations commonly afforded to authentic religions and religious sects are hereby withdrawn from Islam and its adherents. All mosques, centers, camps, and other organizations run by this cult shall be immediately placed under police surveillance and subjected to thorough financial audit. Any such mosque, center, camp or other organization found to have foreign financing shall be immedidately and permanently closed.

"Whereas the canonical doctrines of this cult authorize subversion of established laws, traditional local customs, and the civil order so as advance totalitarian political objectives entirely contrary to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and whereas it is a primary duty of the United States Federal Government to protect the populace from foreign attack, to preserve the civil order, and to preserve the rule of law, no member of this hostile cult shall be permitted to enter the United States or its territories, for any reason, except under continuous Federal armed guard and for strictly limited purposes and duration, to be determined by the President. Any non-citizen member of this cult shall have his visa immediately revoked and shall be sent back to his country of origin. Any members of this cult present in this country illegally shall immediately be detained, placed under arrest, and deported within within 24 hours.

"Whereas the canonical doctrines of this cult permit loyalty only to a hostile and closed collective polity referred to as the Umma, and since this loyalty to Umma pre-emptively abrogates any oath of loyalty to the Constitution, no member of this cult shall be permitted to hold Federal office at any level, including specifically but not exclusively any position that involves national security, including those within the intelligence agencies, the armed forces, and policing agencies.

"Whereas foreign nations that proclaim Islamic law or principles as their guiding doctrine are in a de facto state of war against the United States and its Allies, all foreign economic and military assistance to those Islamic nations shall be halted immediately. This termination includes any and all aid or support for the entities known as the Palestian Authority, the Palestian Territory, and any other non-nation state polity that is defined or guided by Islamic doctrine.

"Whereas the political cult called Islam has, through direct attack on this country and on our Allies and friends across the globe, and whereas this cult continues, on a daily basis, to inflict new attacks and threaten future such attacks, the financial assets of Islamic nations or Islamic polities within the United States shall be seized and used to pay restitution to the victims of terror attacks and their families, to support injured war veterans and their families, to support the families of deceased war veterans, and to fund Homeland Security operations.

"Set down on this first day of January, in the year 2008."

Posted by: Stendec

at December 29, 2007 11:38 AM

Stendec, If only. A nicely put, succinct resolution, but a dream only since none of our politicians is brave enough to submit it.

Posted by: Coeurmaeghan

at December 29, 2007 11:46 AM

The UN is history.. Can anybody please tell me why we are paying 1/4 of the budget?

Posted by: lonewolf

at December 29, 2007 11:46 AM

Stendecs post of a possible executive order shows an aspect of the differences in cultural perception. Our free exercise clause cannot be reconciled with a religion whose supremacist claims limit the free exercise of other religions, and also advocates violence to others.

As for the UN, basically the mission of the UN is to redistribute money from the middle class of wealthy nations to the elite classes of poor nations. Usually the money ends up in swiss bank accounts while the poor nations end up with crippling debt.

It is a rather simple scheme to privatize the results of corruption, that people have been played for so long shows the wishful thinking of people whose liberality is less a matter of principal and more a matter of identity politics.

Just as the long rule of Marxists in Germany has made the people under that rule shaped by those tenets, even if all Muslims were at perfect liberty to pursue the truth even where Mahomet veered from it, it would still be generations before the onerous doctrines effects would wane.

Posted by: stickman

at December 29, 2007 12:09 PM

"...freedom of expression ... being used ... to express anti-Islam sentiment."

While we still may, con permisso. Use it or lose it.

Posted by: jsla

at December 29, 2007 12:25 PM

When can we expect the First Baptist Church of Makka?

Posted by: interestinconundrum

at December 29, 2007 12:35 PM

"Muslim minorities are subjected to 'ethnic and religious profiling ... in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001,' "

Oh ya, and exactly what % of the population is now 'profiled' at airports. Answer 100%. They got us profiling ourselves. What a feat. Thanks to Islamic terrorists.

Posted by: sounder

at December 29, 2007 12:47 PM

Alongside a resolution adopted by the U.N. General Assembly this week calling for a moratorium on the death penalty, the world body passed a raft of other human rights-related motions.

Looks like the skumbag Bali Bombers wont be rollicking with the virgins

Posted by: shiva

at December 29, 2007 1:05 PM

Is it 'defamation' if it is substantiated truth?

Is there any other religion that is so embarrassed about their beliefs that they can't allow outsiders to examine them?

I know that they aren't really embarrassed. They just know that others will hate and resist them when they learn the truth about Islam.

Well too bad. I think hate is the proper response to a repressive, supremacist ideology. This is not to say that one should go around and 'hate' all individual muslims because they are muslims, but I think it is OK to hate an ideology that goes against things your native culture has taught as good and decent.

Then there is the badmouthing of the word 'discrimination'.
I thought that to discriminate was to be able to distinguish one thing from another thing. When things are obviously different, it is intelligent to discriminate between them.

Posted by: tjhawk

at December 29, 2007 1:12 PM

...fat lady warming her voice...

The EU is right there also. The UK has made religious vilification illegal.

It's been nice posting with all of you.

Waiting for the Left to make a principled defense of free speech.

Still waiting...

And waiting...

Posted by: Beagle

at December 29, 2007 1:13 PM

"... resolution against "defamation of religions""

This can only be understood as a ban on Islam. Islam is the only religious doctrine on earth which is packed with defamation of other religions. Defamation of religion is what Islam is all about. OK, let us start practicing this resolution at once!

Posted by: Osmund Bindalen

at December 29, 2007 1:13 PM

Osmund Bindalen

I agree, Islam is a hate crime.

Posted by: Joe Schmoe USA

at December 29, 2007 1:27 PM

The UN General Assembly has been against US interests since 1945. Legally speaking, the General Assembly is as powerful as a toothless old man trying to gnaw through a steel rod.

The GA has no power to make international law, only the Security Council.

Does anyone have a copy of the resolution? I ran out of toilet paper.

Posted by: HistorianTheologian

at December 29, 2007 1:31 PM

UN General Assembly resolutions are not obligatory and have no real power.Only the Security Council decisions matter where all big powers have veto right.
It is just a propaganda victory for Muslims.
If Western governments pass laws pretending that they have to obey this resolution they tell a lie for their own reasons.

Posted by: athenian

at December 29, 2007 1:34 PM

athenian,

Just another incremental step in taking away our basic freedoms?

Oh, nothing to worry about then.

Posted by: Beagle

at December 29, 2007 1:44 PM

So, does this mean that Saudi Arabia is in trouble? Since it defames all religions other than islam.

Posted by: Borg

at December 29, 2007 1:44 PM

Although the resolution refers to defamation of "religions," Islam is the only religion named in the text, which also takes a swipe at counter-terrorism security measures.

Poor little Muslims. The only way they can defend their religion is to have the law forbidding everyone from attacking it.

Such a pathetic religion, isn't it?

Posted by: Crusader

at December 29, 2007 2:10 PM

I’ve made the following argument:

Islam is a corrupt organization under the RICO Statutes because it represents a pattern of rackeetering behavior:

9:5 Threat of violence;
9:29- Extortion;
etc. etc. etc.

Those ‘associated’ with a ‘corrupt organization’ are guilty by association under RICO. Check out Savage’s amended lawsuit:

The RICO enterprise conducts terrorism all over the world; the racketeering activity conducted by CAIR funds that activity, which activity culminated in the 9/11 Attack. The usual and daily activities of the Rico Enterprise include recruitment, indoctrination, and the provisioning and operation of training camps, all of which activities are funded by the racketeering activities described herein.

Well done Horowitz. Take it to ‘em.

http://www.savage-productions.com/Savage_CAIR_suit.html

Posted by: pez

at December 29, 2007 2:28 PM

I’ve made the following argument:

Islam itself is a corrupt organization under the RICO Statutes because it represents a pattern of rackeetering behavior:

9:5 Threat of violence;
9:29- Extortion;
etc. etc. etc.

Those ‘associated’ with a ‘corrupt organization’ are guilty by association under RICO. Check out Savage’s amended lawsuit:

Well done Horowitz. Take it to ‘em.

http://www.savage-productions.com/Savage_CAIR_suit.html

Posted by: pez

at December 29, 2007 2:31 PM

I second what Athenian said. Of course this is the kind of thing we would prefer to avoid, but we need to keep it in perspective. There's no need to lose any sleep on such a piece of claptrap.

The UN is nothing but a a glorified state level international debating club whose acts are easily rendered ineffective. Its an embarrassment even to itself. The sad history of its resolutions shows that they are - even the good ones - routinely ignored by member states, even by those voting in the affirmative, and since the organization is not a sovereign state there isn't thing one that it can do about it. It remains to be seen how many of the non-Muslim nations voting in favour, which they almost certainly did in the crude, calculating transaction of geopolitical and strategic barter - noting more than tasteless window dressing, actually implement it in their own penal and human rights codes. As it stands its just another tool for the OIC member states and their useful idiots to browbeat us, but we know that they always come up with new ways to do that anyway. If it weren't this, it would be something else - maybe some new absurdity like the blasphemous soccer balls or the Mohammed Teddy Bear. Just business as usual.

I'd draw everyone's attention to the voting record which is provided in Annex X in this document from the UN website:

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/ga10678.doc.htm

It does show some good news: all of the western democracies, including the U.S., Canada, France, the U.K., Germany, Spain and the Nordic countries, as well as most of the former Soviet bloc voted against, leaving them even more free to ignore it.

There's a downside of course: India's abstention didn't help, and Russia and China voted in favor, but sadly, as we all know only too well, that seems to be what one would expect from Socialist influence and those who still haven't shaken it off, so that was predictable. (Neither China nor Russia are likely to ever let a little thing like a UN resolution interfere with their conduct of "internal affairs", though).

The rest of the yes vote came from rhe usual malcontent group of failed or struggling "blame the West and the rich North" states in Latin America the likes of Chavez' Venezeula and Nicaragua. Big surprize there!

I'd wager that this thing is going to fizzle out, leaving the Islamist countries to flog it on their own once their friends in Latin America, China, South West Asia and the remnant of Russia have gotten whatever mileage they think they can from it.

Posted by: templar

at December 29, 2007 2:51 PM

Abscedere:

That's the spirit!

Posted by: templar

at December 29, 2007 3:01 PM

This is such abject hypocrisy. Everything the Muslims whine about they do themselves. Such hypocrisy rises to the level of evil. Muslims are way more bigoted towards other religions than any other group.

Posted by: Dumbo

at December 29, 2007 3:12 PM

The United Nazis can kiss my rear end.

It's my RIGHT to defame religions! Any religion I want.

And since they name Islam explicitly in their document I'll provide an appropriate example here:

ISLAM STINKS!

=============

It's high time the US and Japan stopped paying for this pretentious luxury hate-fest.

And get them out of NY!

If the CIA wants to keep these dressed up savages under surveillance, give them a building somewhere in the middle of the southwestern desert -- as far as possible from decent folks.

Better still, put them in Belgium and let the EUrocrats pay for the charade.

Posted by: joeblough

at December 29, 2007 4:12 PM

This resolution is directly opposed to the 1st Amendment of our Constitution.

Destroying free speech is part of the Muslim Brotherhood Project to destroy the West. It is time to separate ourselves from the UN. They should be asked to leave.

I vote for Cairo to be the future site of the UN which can then be dedicated to the OIC . Ultimately the US must withdraw from this den of criminals, free-loaders, despots, and religious tyrants. With few exceptions it has been a failure as an organization and certainly does not advance US interests.

Someone (Jeff Babbin?) recommended we instead form alliances with democratic nations, which would exclude the entire OIC. Such an alliance should be formed, perhaps out of the NATO framework to defend Western civilization against Islam.

Posted by: Jimmy Bones

at December 29, 2007 4:14 PM

Little known facts about the United Nations

The first Secretary General of the UN was Alger Hiss who was a U.S. citizen who was also
also a key author of the UN Charter. In 1948, he was exposed as a Soviet spy.

Since the UN was founded in 1945, how many new wars have erupted? Since "man's best hope for peace" was founded, there have been over 140 wars. Our two no-win wars, Korea and Vietnam (via SEATO) had UN roots.

In 1961, the U.S. State Department published a plan to turn over to the UN a three-stage disarmament program after which America would be left with only "internal security forces" - no military!

Of the first 14 UN Undersecretaries who controlled the UN's military, all 14
were Communists! At the UN's founding, it was agreed that the Undersecretary for Political and Security Council Affairs would be chosen by the Soviet Union.

A July, 2001 UN conference had as its ultimate goal, the worldwide seizure of "Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons.." which was a step toward taking guns from civilians in all countries ... including the USA!

Posted by: Mackie

at December 29, 2007 4:30 PM

While not good news, no need to get too anxious about this...
The UN consists of 192 countries, of which 56 are members of the OIC. To carry a resolution, all they need are 41 more votes from the remaining 136.
Unfortunately, this is normally a slam-dunk.

Posted by: DhimmiNot

at December 29, 2007 5:27 PM

What?

Now I cant say anything about any religion? I wonder, what are they doing about the atheists, buddhists, christians, and jews in islamic countries!

it is my basic right, it is my freedom, something earned with so many lives lost in the past! French revolution, first amendment, and the basic right for every human being in this planet, freedom of speech and thought!

I will criticize, and tell the truth about Islam, I will curse it, and I will say bad things, no religion deserves especial respect, and islam deserves no respect at all, if islam doesnt respect me, I wont respect it. I will respect certain muslims that will keep for themselves, and will not try to convert me, or make me a dhimmi. Beyond that I so will blaspheme!

Muhammed is a lying schizophrenic epileptic paedophile idiot! And Jesus can go to hell too

I'm an Atheist, and I don't see why there should be treated with extra respect any religion. Religion is just an ideology, Richard Dawkins said so thoroughly in "god Delusion" Book, Religion deserves no extra respect than any other subject we discuss.

Posted by: Dr.CancerMan

at December 29, 2007 5:34 PM

Stendec

I like your projected "Executive Order".

I will scrapbook it in my little file entitled "What to Do About Islam".

It wouldn't take much to reword that 'Order' so as to fit Australian conditions. Or Russian, or Filipino, or French, or Thai, or British...or...(fill in the blanks).

Indeed, other people reading at this site - citizens of such threatened countries - might like to amuse themselves by attempting such adaptations, and translations. Come on, French lurkers - translate Stendec's theoretical 'Order' into the sort of thing you'd like Sarkozy to bring down. And when you're done, post it here, in English and in French.

Englishmen here - any lawyers? - how would Stendec's proposal translate into English terms? - you'd need to refer to the fact that Sharia, for example, blatantly violates the guiding principles of Magna Carta and of English Common Law as developed over centuries.

No Infidel government will be brave enough to make a New Year's Resolution like this anytime soon. But now your Idea is turned loose in the blogosphere, and lots of bright military, legal, political, academic and journalistic minds start turning it over and over, you don't know what might come of it, eventually.

How does the saying go? - aim high and at least you won't shoot yourself in the foot.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy

at December 29, 2007 5:48 PM

Defame? the main defence of a claim against defamation is TRUTH!
What fun can be had citing Muslim texts to support the truth.
What a pointless resolution.

Posted by: tommy

at December 29, 2007 5:49 PM

What will happen when someone points out the simple fact that Islam's sacred sharia law prescribes death as punishment for 'apostasy' and 'blasphemy', and that this prescription flatly contradicts the spirit of the UN resolution calling for a moratorium on the death penalty?

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy

at December 29, 2007 6:09 PM

Screw the U.N. and screw Islam and the pedophile it rode in on.

Posted by: profitsbeard

at December 29, 2007 6:12 PM

An sure the Islamists will CELEBRATE their victory
by blowing up another U.N building & U.N unlucky
persons-maybe Banki Moon,himself!
If you WANT to gauge Public Opinion at Auntie Beeb
go to Have Your Say-click on 'Highly Recommended'
comments to Benazir Bhutto and be GOB SMACKED!!
A couple of years ago you couldn't criticise Islam
or Muslims without being straight away deleted by
Burka Biased Corporation...Now there are hundreds
of BBC viewers endorsing statements that 'Islam is
a violent religion', that 'Jihadists are danger to
West'-miracles will never cease I hope.

Posted by: Morgane

at December 29, 2007 6:37 PM

Gentle Folk:

Lest we get ourselves in a tizzy over this UN declaration (read: cop out), here is the basic text released to the media: (I have made some formatting changes to enhance the key points.)

“Draft resolution VI on Combating defamation of religions (document A/C.3/62/L.35), approved as orally revised by a recorded vote of 95 in favour to 52 against, with 30 abstentions, on 20 November, would have the Assembly express deep concern about the negative stereotyping of religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief, still in evidence in some regions of the world. The Assembly would emphasize that:

A Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which should be exercised with responsibility and may therefore be subject to limitations, according to law and necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others;
B. Protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals;
C. Respect for [all/other?] religions and beliefs.

(Press Release GA/SHC/3909)”
-------------------------------------------------

Notice how these weasels have worded each item carefully to “protect” Islam, and Islam only?

Item A and B fit very nicely into the agendas of Islamic countries. When will they, members of the OIC, begin to adhere to, and apply Item C?

I look forward to the day when Western governments use these very principles to protect our own democracies and republics. What’s good for the goose….

Posted by: boneshack

at December 29, 2007 7:16 PM

If Islamists think they can get their way over sovereign countries by some overweighed UN non binding resolution it can think again. Arabs raise their male children to be spoiled, misogynist non thinkers they apparently believe the rest of the world must bow to their rationale. That is simply not going to happen. It is amazing that the perpetrators of such death and evil can attempt to intimidate the world, mainly the West into wringing our hands at how terrible we are being to Muslims that are trying to take over our societies, and kill us if we resist.

But even more troubling is that people like President Bush, with his religion of peace statements never seems to see that his friends, the Saudi's, are busily installing Wahhabism in America as fast as possible. Of course, those of us that see clearly that the Saudi's are not our friends, will be ever so happy to see Mr. Bush gone. He has been a bitter disappointment to me, as I worked hard on his campaigns thinking he would put things right after Clinton made such a mess of Islamic foreign policy. He has not, he has adhered to the same faulty Oslo strategy, and continues to put pressure on Israel is all he can do because that, of course, pleases the Arabs. No doubt we went into Iraq to be sure that Saddam didn't somehow undermine the Saudi Royal family. That seems to be why James Baker was really running foreign policy behind the scene, and pocketing Saudi cash from his "advisory" assistance to them.

Mr. Bush is going to leave a failed legacy for, God willing, the Israeli's will see that it is suicide to give up any more land, they must have defensible borders, and they will NEVER have peace until the Arab dictators around them conclude that they cannot be pushed into the sea. That is why we must stand behind Israel resolutely. Israel is not the problem in the Middle East, Islam and the Arabs are the problem. They are jealous of Jewish success in Israel and the world. They are jealous of Western economies, yet cannot emulate it because their religion and culture keeps them back in the dark ages. Israel is the jewel, and they cannot stand it that it is not theirs. Of course they didn't want the territory until the Jews returned to their historic lands, and made the deserts bloom. If indeed the Arabs did succeed in ousting the Israelis, it would end up like all their other pits of hell, like Gaza.

Oh yes, Islam needs resolution after resolution absolving them of their crimes and it's appetite for blood and plunder. It is a pathetic, revolting belief system and should be outlawed as a crime against humanity.

Posted by: CLL1709

at December 29, 2007 8:03 PM

"The resolution decries "the negative projection of Islam in the media" and voices "deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism."

And what about when Islam is RIGHTLY associated with human rights violations and terrorism?!

A very dangerous resolution. A naked effort to silence any criticism of Islam. Aiding and abetting abusers and terrorists. Disgusting!

Posted by: alexon

at December 29, 2007 9:15 PM

Make sure all of you have good attorney's. You will all be facing the legal system very soon, especially once the democrats get in power. good luck all, goodbye US constitution.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer

at December 29, 2007 9:29 PM

The U.N. had better look up the definitions of the words "defame" and "defamation."

They will never stop criticism, well deserved criticism or confrontation of this false faith, no matter what they try, no matter whose ear they have.

It's not going to happen. For years, this same organization of corrupt mutts has made attempts to have our guns taken away. They have failed, and will continue to fail.

They're a bunch of overpaid, empty suits, and should be kicked the hell out of the United States. The U.S. should quit the U.N., and should cut off all funding to it.

To hell with those bums.

Posted by: Prickzilla

at December 30, 2007 12:13 AM

''The motion on defamation of religions has been a priority for the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) since 9/11. It took on new impetus following a Danish newspaper's publication in 2005 of cartoons satirizing Mohammed.''

I don't suppose the OIC will wish to implement this resolution in their various states which routinely viciously portray western 'religions' and especially the Jews as the root of all evil?

No, thought not.

Stick your idiotic resolution where the sun don't shine.

Posted by: Joshua

at December 30, 2007 2:11 AM

Islam deserves to be defamed. What does it offer to merit it being "famed?"

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble

at December 30, 2007 2:11 AM

Dr.CancerMan

The religion of atheism stinks also...purposeless, meaningless, amoral, philosophically bankrupt...

Posted by: Sonshine

at December 30, 2007 5:59 AM

Not suprised by UN decision. That organization is run by dictators and thugs anyways. This is why the internet is needed to step up to the plate and TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT ISLAM, MOHAMMED, KORAN, HADAITH, AND JIHAD. Keep up the good work JW/DW.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106

at December 30, 2007 6:28 AM

Plus the truth that a "moon rock god" is being worshiped.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106

at December 30, 2007 6:31 AM

This is an attack on democracy itself and should not be abided by anyone who believes in democracy.

Defamation of any religion (in fact any belief), even if it causes offence, is the very foundation of democractic freedom. A foundation that now seems under threat.

If we cannot offend people with our opinions then we have no freedom, no democracy. That's okay for Muslims who don't want freedom, but should be anathema to anyone who values equality, democracy and freedom.

The UN is not saying "No defamation of religions" it is saying religious offence justifies the removal of democracy and freedom. This couldn't be more wrong.

I, for one, will never stop defaming intolerant religions, or any other forms of injustice, which deserve to be defamed.

We must all fight this. Write to your senator to tell them what we think of the UN and its shameful attack on democracy... before Islam takes what freedoms we have left.

Posted by: Stefcho

at December 30, 2007 7:42 AM

More then ever, the internet is going to be much more important in the just fight for democratic freedom.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106

at December 30, 2007 8:25 AM

Dr.CancerMan,

The religion of atheism is DEAD also, died in 1989 when the Berlin Wall went down. Religous faith is alive and active.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106

at December 30, 2007 8:29 AM

Sonshine and bigcatgirl13106;

Religion is not a source for morality, are you saying you don't do bad things because you are afraid of god? It is pretty much the same thing as the islamics do. Atheism is simply not in believing in god, it is based on science and hard facts. One of the things that we all agree with, especially with the agnostics, is that abrahamic religions are the most violent in the world, and pretty much the root of all evil, but islam is the most deadly and malignant of all its sects and branches.

Besides, atheism is not a religion, it never was and it never will be, you are an atheist also, the difference between you and me is that I go one god further.

Atheism has nothing to do with communism as well, communism and its ideas, are a failure. The deaths and tortures that happened in Russia and similar countries with communism are only related with communism, it has nothing to do with the belief or disbelief of anyone! What happened down there is merely the need of a person to control everyone and got high on power. I'm a proud capitalist and atheist. My morality is not based on any religion, but on the right and good, the bad and evil we all can distinguish.

Posted by: Dr.CancerMan

at December 30, 2007 9:47 AM

Just to make my point even stronger

Christopher Hitchens said;
"...name an ethical statement or action, made or performed by a person of faith, that could not have been made or performed by a nonbeliever."

Posted by: Dr.CancerMan

at December 30, 2007 9:54 AM

The UN might as well change its name to UIN - United Islamic Nations, and the headquarters should be moved to Saudi Arabia.

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi

at December 30, 2007 10:10 AM

It wasn't to long ago that a US Congressional committee chaired by who else but Representative John Conyers who has Dearbornistan in his area was holding meetings on a bill introduced to suppress free speech on religion. The bill even focused and singled out Islam as a religon that needed to be protected from free speech-- Hopefully it sanely, and intelligently disappeared into committee. But it could again rear its ugly repressive head at any time in the halls of our US Congress, No doubt groups like the ACLU, and CAIR are again working to push such legislation through, once again trying to ignore the first amendment to our Constitution.

Posted by: Mackie

at December 30, 2007 11:17 AM

As I re-read it this morning, I found some embarrassing errors in my proposed Executive Order. My apologies for the sloppy proofreading.
Here are two corrections:

First, "Palestian" should be "Palestinian," of course.

Second, the last clause had a major grammatical disconnect. Here is a possible re-wording:

"Whereas the political cult called Islam has, through direct attack on the United States and on our Allies and friends across the globe, has inflicted violent death and destruction on our citizenry and has deliberately harmed our economic infrastructure, and whereas this cult, on a daily basis, threatens, based on holy writ, to inflict future such death, destruction, and harm, without limitation and without end, the financial assets of Islamic nations or Islamic polities within the United States shall be seized and used to pay restitution to the victims of terror attacks and their families, to support injured war veterans and their families, to support the families of deceased war veterans, and to fund Homeland Security operations."

Posted by: Stendec

at December 30, 2007 1:29 PM

The UN must now ask itself one simple, but very important, question: Is Islam as a bona fide religion? Or is it, perhaps, a political system clothed in a deity? In other words, a pseudo religion, a politico-religious movement hell-bent, since its inception, of taking over the whole world? An exceedingly dangerous, megalomaniacal cult!

We would be doing ourselves a great favour to declassify Islam as a religion, for then the West would be justified in closing down all the mosques, madrassahs, and propagation centres.

Maybe, after all is said and done, the UN is, unwittingly, doing the West a great favour!

Posted by: Mark Alexander

at December 30, 2007 1:39 PM

Mackie - your list of UN deficiencies is very interesting. However, I do find a fault with the following statement:

"…Our two no-win wars, Korea and Vietnam (via SEATO) had UN roots."

I do not think the Korean war can be considered "no win". We turned back the North Korean blitzkrieg at the Pusan Perimeter and cut them off with the Inchon landing. Their army was then totally decimated and if it were not the Chinese communists entering the fight and "saving" them, North Korea would be as prosperous as the South is today, and there be only one nation. Some "save".

We won in this sense - we defeated the NK blitzkrieg and subsequently ensured that all of South Korea would remain free. We lost some 54,000 Americans in that war. They did not die in vain.

It can be argued that had the North won, the entire peninsula would have become a dagger pointing at Japan, one that would have invited Sino-Soviet adventurism against Japan. Recall that the years 1945 - 1953, as well as Vietnam later, were years in which the Chinese and Soviet war machines and intrigues were on the march everywhere. Korea was the first turning back of the red tide.

Posted by: Jimmy Bones

at December 30, 2007 2:36 PM

Essential freedoms afford timeless exploration and discovery. They will escape from tyranny, when they take off their Islamic straitjacket. They must learn the truth about Western influences and core values. They can build innovative and functional designs, to better accommodate differences in religion, gender, culture, race, age, income, and occupation. The new standard should be flexible enough to endure the test of time.

Posted by: SFOD

at December 30, 2007 2:59 PM

Dr Cancerman:

Atheism IS religion. It is a total belief system about life, the universe and everything. Only as I said, it is a religion that at root is purposeless, meaningless and amoral. Further, it cannot be held consistently.

Unfortunately Christopher Hitchens doesn't nail your point at all when he said - quoting from your post:
"...name an ethical statement or action, made or performed by a person of faith, that could not have been made or performed by a nonbeliever."

What is an 'ethical statement'? Simply one that says things 'should' be one way (good) and 'should not' be another way (bad/evil). Of course anyone can make such a statement, but whether it is consistent with all philosophical positions is a totally different matter. Hitchens' statement is irrelevant.

In an amoral universe, which this is from an atheists perspective, nothing 'should be' one way and not another. Things just are - end of story. Ethical statements, several of which you have made yourself - ie, 'abrahamic religions are the most violent in the world, and pretty much the root of all evil,' - are meaningless. Evil? By what standard? In an atheist worldview there is no standard. You are just exalting your personal opinion - and using ethical words to do so - into a universal standard. But appeal to a universal standard is something you condemn in others who say there is such a standard external to/higher than the human race, which grounds human ethical statements in meaning. You can't have it both ways. If there is no higher law then not only others but you yourself do not have a higher law. But then you appeal to one as soon as you talk about evil...and as soon as you condemn Islam. Condemn it...BY WHAT STANDARD?

So, is there a higher law or not? For atheists such a law does not exist, yet the fact that everyone, including atheists, continually make ethical statements indicates one does.

Posted by: Sonshine

at December 30, 2007 4:08 PM

-------------------------

Again I have to quote Hitchens, how I can't be moral ? If I'm not moral what is stopping me from becoming a terrorist? The thing you have to understand that morality does NOT come from religion and in belief of god, what I always say and stated before, if your morality comes from fear of your god in punishing you, then your not moral, you are just afraid of the punishment... And morality based on that is not morality, it's just instinct.

----------------------
What is an 'ethical statement'? Simply one that says things 'should' be one way (good) and 'should not' be another way (bad/evil). Of course anyone can make such a statement, but whether it is consistent with all philosophical positions is a totally different matter. Hitchens' statement is irrelevant.
----------------------

[R]
He said action as well, still, name one thing that you can do that I can't do.
---------------------------
In an amoral universe, which this is from an atheists perspective, nothing 'should be' one way and not another. Things just are - end of story. Ethical statements, several of which you have made yourself - ie, 'abrahamic religions are the most violent in the world, and pretty much the root of all evil,' - are meaningless. Evil? By what standard?
--------------
[R]

I think you are getting confused, atheism is only the nonbelief in god, the end. We accept evolution which never stops to show up evidence. The ethical codes of the religions are made up by man and present as if god did it. So, if we go the point of stating that morality and ethical "stuff" comes from religion we should, as mentioned in the bible stone kids that behave badly(no out of context bs) or marry a 9 year old girl as it says in the Koran.
-------------------
You can't have it both ways. If there is no higher law then not only others but you yourself do not have a higher law. But then you appeal to one as soon as you talk about evil...and as soon as you condemn Islam. Condemn it...BY WHAT STANDARD?
------------------
[R]

Talking about evil and things that are bad, right or good does not imply deities, if so, you are also implying the existance of gods older and more wiser than the christian god, in which, by abrahamic religions are blasphemy.

You have to understand a point, morality, ethical point, what is right or wrong does not come from religion or deities, it comes from ourselves, on what we perceive what is wrong or right. This is philosophy, which I'm not too strong, but you can not claim our judgemental feelings based in a deity.

Do you feel or would like if someone did something bad to you? No, neither do I, this is a simple premise and example to try to explain to you that your point is moot and meaningless.

Atheists follow the law of the government, and respect it, and like I mentioned in my previous message and now, if you are only right, good and morally correct because of god punishing you for breaking one of his laws, then you are NOT moral, ethically right and good. You are simply afraid...

This is why abrahamic religions are so successful with people, it incites fear... Something so basic...

Posted by: Dr.CancerMan

at December 30, 2007 5:02 PM

Dr.CancerMan,

If Atheism is so great, then why up to 100 million people were killed under it during the era of communist rule in the last century alone?

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106

at December 30, 2007 5:51 PM

Also add that the movie "The Golden Compass" bombed bigtime in the American movie boxoffice. Proof of the sucess of the boycott by many American Christians which in numbers go pass over 80%.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106

at December 30, 2007 5:54 PM

DrCancerman (DCM)

DCM. Again I have to quote Hitchens, how I can't be moral ? If I'm not moral what is stopping me from becoming a terrorist? The thing you have to understand that morality does NOT come from religion and in belief of god, what I always say and stated before, if your morality comes from fear of your god in punishing you, then your not moral, you are just afraid of the punishment... And morality based on that is not morality, it's just instinct.

REPLY:

You don't understand your own atheism. I never said you weren't moral - meaning acknowledging somethings to be right and somethings to be wrong. I said atheism provides no basis for making such distinctions meaningfully. As an atheist there is no valid reason why you should not be a terrorist. If you choose that, that is your choice and that is all, but neither right or wrong.

----------------------

DCM. He (Hitchen) said action as well, still, name one thing that you can do that I can't do.

REPLY:

The point is not whether we can do similar or identical things (apparently), its whether those things are consistent with our underlying philosophical position. When an atheist claims to do or say a 'moral' thing, they are being inconsistent with their atheism, which provides absolutely no basis for ethics.
---------------------------

DCM. I think you are getting confused, atheism is only the nonbelief in god, the end. We accept evolution which never stops to show up evidence. The ethical codes of the religions are made up by man and present as if god did it. So, if we go the point of stating that morality and ethical "stuff" comes from religion we should, as mentioned in the bible stone kids that behave badly(no out of context bs) or marry a 9 year old girl as it says in the Koran.

REPLY:

With all due respect you are confused. Atheism is not simply 'nonbelief in god, the end'. From that starting positions flows views about everything and on everything in life - one of which is your statement '...ethical codes are made up by man...' Who says? You says! If you start with no God, then you must say ethical codes are man made, so your statement follows from your 'no god' start.
Also, as an atheist you must asset evolution, which you have - the origins myth of the atheist. The problem is you have no way whatsoever from your materialist starting point, to general life or the codes that life runs on. You need mind to get information, but your system has no mind from which to derive it. You explicitly deny mind. As Stephen J Gould said, "There is no such thing as mind, only brain."
-------------------

...You have to understand a point, morality, ethical point, what is right or wrong does not come from religion or deities, it comes from ourselves, on what we perceive what is wrong or right.

REPLY:

As above. You are confused. You assert that morality does not come from gods. How do you know? On the basis of your starting position that there are no gods! So...this being the case you correctly say that morality comes from ourselves. But which 'selves'? You? Me? Mohammad? The problem is that you and I and a million others could all make up different 'moralities' for ourselves and they would all be right - even if mutually contradictory - if we so asserted.

----------------------

DCM. Do you feel or would like if someone did something bad to you? No, neither do I, this is a simple premise and example to try to explain to you that your point is moot and meaningless.

REPLY:

It has nothing to do with what I would feel like if this or that was done to me. Because if the person who did it thought it was right/good for them to do it, it would be right/good for them to do it. What I think about it is irrelevant. Who am I - or you - to say it was wrong for them to do it?

------------------

DCM. Atheists follow the law of the government, and respect it, and like I mentioned in my previous message and now, if you are only right, good and morally correct because of god punishing you for breaking one of his laws, then you are NOT moral, ethically right and good. You are simply afraid...

REPLY:

Do atheists all 'follow the law of government'? But regardless, why should such a law be followed? What is so great about governments that they should be followed? We just watched 'All The Presidents Men' last night - about Watergate. Were Nixon and all his fellows right in what they did? On your basis, Yes of course. They chose and therefore it was right.

I have just finished reading 'Blacklisted by History' about Joe McCarthy back in the late 1940's through early 50's. Are all the lies that were/have been told about him by Government and others, both then and since, moral? If not why not?

------------------

DCM. This is why abrahamic religions are so successful with people, it incites fear... Something so basic...

REPLY:

Yet more confusion.

Posted by: Sonshine

at December 30, 2007 6:33 PM

" ... Richard Dawkins said so thoroughly in "god Delusion" Book

Posted by Dr. CancerMan

Doctor:

I'm LOL at this! You've got to be kidding! A brilliant bit of ironic humour - no doubt! - (even if a little too obvious), but (just to remove all doubt) tell me you're not serious.

'Richard Dawkins said so in ... "the Book" [no less!]'

(... case closed)!

Talk about religious devotion!

I'm guessing you're a true believer of some sort- an evangelical, a born again, a Catholic maybe, ... an ultra-Orthodox Jew, maybe even a liberal Muslim, or perhaps a Hindu. Just trying to make a point in support of faith ...?

Am I right? Do I win a prize!?

Posted by: templar

at December 30, 2007 7:31 PM

Dr.CancerMan,

I will be praying for your full conversion to faith in Christ.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106

at December 30, 2007 8:12 PM

Dr.CancerMan,

If Atheism is so great, then why up to 100 million people were killed under it during the era of communist rule in the last century alone?

Also add that the movie "The Golden Compass" bombed bigtime in the American movie boxoffice. Proof of the sucess of the boycott by many American Christians which in numbers go pass over 80%.

-----------------------------
[R]
Good question, since when communism and atheism are both part of each other and must be dealt accordinly? SO in other words, there were no mass murdering and no mass killings in the name of atheism or...

I miss the times when being an atheist was just not believing in deities, now we have fanatical christians trying to explain and give a reason for they faith... tsc... Even though it might be failed you have to remember that the world is not based only in USA, and besides, I wonder how much the "box office" have won in the paedophilies case about the priests...

PS: People are afraid of the truth, and they are afraid of god, so they will do anything to appease its fury! That is one of the reasons why muslims are so violent, reward and punishment, something that scientists do with lab rats :)

Posted by: Dr.CancerMan

at December 30, 2007 8:16 PM

DrCancerMan,

"Atheism has nothing to do with communism as well, communism and its ideas, are a failure. The deaths and tortures that happened in Russia and similar countries with communism are only related with communism, it has nothing to do with the belief or disbelief of anyone! What happened down there is merely the need of a person to control everyone and got high on power. I'm a proud capitalist and atheist. My morality is not based on any religion, but on the right and good, the bad and evil we all can distinguish."

Like it or not, atheism and communism have been very deeply connected together during the course of the era communist rule. When connected together it cause the deaths of millions of people. This CANNOT BE DENIED. Faith in truth HAS DONE MUCH MORE GOOD THEN HARM. The positive fruits of faith can be seen.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106

at December 30, 2007 8:18 PM

Dr.CancerMan,

I will be praying for your full conversion to faith in Christ.

-----------------

[R]

Keep doing it, bigcatgirl13106, so far, more than a hundred christians have tried, none succeeded! haha

---------------------
templar; Cant we just quote people anymore?

Posted by: Dr.CancerMan

at December 30, 2007 8:18 PM

DrCancerMan,

With other people, it is impossible, but NOT WITH GOD. TRULY ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE WITH GOD. :)

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106

at December 30, 2007 8:21 PM

-------------------------

[R]

When peole keep saying it to you, and you try to imply it in your own post, then you kind of do it automatically. And atheism is ONLY the non-belief in god, if you are only good because of god, then I will be afraid of you, when you realize that god doesn't exist, because you will be capable of the most hideous crimes imaginable...

We are good to each other because it can prove protection, it guarantees more chances of survival in groups and the continuation of our species, its basic dawrnism as well.

--------------------------
The point is not whether we can do similar or identical things (apparently), its whether those things are consistent with our underlying philosophical position. When an atheist claims to do or say a 'moral' thing, they are being inconsistent with their atheism, which provides absolutely no basis for ethics.
----------------------------
[R]

When or how can you come up with those ideas? So if we do bad things we will be inconsistant with atheism as well? So you suggest that we live a life emotionless and lifeless? Besides, one of the things that drives any person to do anything is emotion, and emotion is a set of chemicals and hormones messing you up inside.

In case you didnt get it and your point is moot.

----------------------------

[R]

A- without
Theo - God

I guess that the definition of the word can explain the meaning of it. The statements are made by evidence, the main commandments or the main laws of various religions comes from the previous one in set local. If you study history you will see that christianism stole from pagan various symbols and "days", a fact of this is the use of the ring in angels or in some frames or pcitures of christ. This means sun, or the sun god of the egypt.

So, with that example, you will see, with the bible contradicting itself will prove that is not a book made by god, inspired by the idea of a superior being exist yes, but not made by it, so all what is written in it or what ever is written quoting or mentioning god, is only made by man and its imagination.

--------------------------

[R]

Here you are getting confused, let me explain, mohammed, at that time there were no idea that getting sex with a kid was wrong, so in their eyes, with him plagiarizing stuff from the local pagans and christianism, he made Allah or at least its actual defition or what we know about it. And this Allah permits this, in turn the morality of Mohammed and its culture is what Allah is.

To explain to you even further, we do what we do to guarantee our survival, as a especies, as a race and as a living being, everything we do are pretty much the same as the other animals do, especially monkeys as they can make war with each group.

Our views and moralities have something in common and laws will prevent individuals with mental or psychological problems to disrupt the life of others. If morality comes from god, then ants have a brain so advanced that can understand the concept of god and following it, because what they do, is what we do... Actually, a ant colony is pretty much similar to a human city.

-----------------------------

------------------------------

[R]

The same person who insists that atheism is amoral.

-------------------------------

[R]

So you are trying to say that we should follow made up laws from the medieval ages made by epileptic or crazy people who has no idea what they are doing?

Laws change with the age we live in, in the past, hookers were allowed, with the increase of christianity it became forbidden, and now, slowing, it is being allowed to the society again.

So you dont follow the constitution? The american constitution? If you are not american, then you do what you god says you can do? No matter what? Even if you a vision of it? Or hearing voices?

-------------------------------------------
Yet more confusion.
---------------------------------------

[R]
I fail to see what is so confusing about it, I suggest, it showed up in channel 4 in Britain, and in USA they have the DVD for sale, about the same author of the book, Richard DAwkins, he made 3 tv programs showing the abrahamic religions, including the stupidity of islam. Jewish, christianism and islam; If you see it, you will understand more of what I'm saying. OR you could simply read history and what really happened, and understand the concept of the abrahamic god.

This is the main reason why abrahamic religions are so sucessfull, the fear, it controls people, that is another reason why rapists, or murders who threat someone.

Posted by: Dr.CancerMan

at December 30, 2007 8:43 PM

[R]

bigcatgirl13106; I suspect you are an adult, so i might suggest reading about communism, and what happened. Communism is a failure, but the idea of not having a belief allowed in those places was used to eliminate the church or anything or any other religion that might change the mind of its population, lets say its a heavy propaganda war.

What the Dictator would have done if he found out that the certain religion X is making peoples mind about his rule and wants to change it? They were afraid of what religion might do to their power...

You have to understand and see the evidence, which shows a heavy propaganda war and brainwash of the Russia Dictators.

REligion has done more evil to mankind than anything in this world combined, but the abrahamic religions and Islam on an altar are the most violent of its kind!

Tell me, a positive fruit of the islam faith? Of the faith on any cult? Or any faith in trying to convert me? You are just wasting time trying to pray. Besides, I think at the beginning of this year, was made a research by christian doctors about the effect of pray in sick patients, it showed up that when the person knew that someone or an entire chruch was praying for them, their healing process slowed down considerably, while a person who didnt knew or never received a pray recovered in normal time.

Praying does nothing, and it might actually be worse, faith as well...

Posted by: Dr.CancerMan

at December 30, 2007 8:52 PM

DCM:

Tell me. Are there any things in life that we can validly be fearful of? In other words, while some 'fears' may be just products of a vivid imagination, are any fears valid? Are you afraid of anything? Is it valid to be fearful of what Islam could do to the world as we know it?

You see if there are valid and invalid 'fears', then to just say that Christians believe in God because of 'fear', is a worthless statement.

For one, you are presuming for yourself God-like powers of knowledge. You are claiming that I believe because of fear. How do you know? Are you God with all knowledge so that you know what motivates me in my deepest thoughts? Obviously not. Therefore to claim such knowledge as you do you have to be arrogant beyond belief.

Two, perhaps there is something about God that is worthy of being fearful of. For example, the God of the Bible does know, as you most definitely do not, all the thoughts, and motivations, and actions, of each one of us. And if he has a standard by which all our thoughts, and motivations, and actions are judged, and if we do not measure up to this standard, then perhaps fear of God is a perfectly valid thing to feel. It is precisely the same fear that causes people to slow down if they know there is a speed camera or radar cop just down the road a bit. It is a perfectly rational and reasonable fear.

Fear of punishment, is a rational motivator to improve behaviour, from children thru adults.

You really haven't thought your arguments through very well at all. You need to wean yourself off religious wallys like Richard Dawkins and read some people of real substance.

That is assuming that you are an atheist as you portray yourself and not some imposter...

Posted by: Sonshine

at December 30, 2007 9:00 PM

Sonshine,

Keep up the good work. God Bless.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106

at December 30, 2007 9:30 PM

DCM:

Let's just limit ourselves to three things only.

1. You keep going on about 'good' and 'bad' as though they are real.

Question: BY WHAT STANDARD DO YOU DETERMINE WHICH IS WHICH?

2. You said: "So if we do bad things we will be inconsistant with atheism as well?"

You misunderstand. When I said: "When an atheist claims to do or say a 'moral' thing, they are being inconsistent with their atheism.' I was using the term 'moral' as a catagory term - something which either should or should not be said or done either good or bad, not 'moral' in the sense of being a good thing only in contrast to something bad. To even use the terms 'good' and 'bad' is inconsistent with atheism because in a genuinely atheistic world, morality (the distinction between good and bad, right and wrong) would not exist, only chemicals doing their thing. These terms in an atheistic world are meaningless.

2. You said: 'So you suggest that we live a life emotionless and lifeless? Besides, one of the things that drives any person to do anything is emotion, and emotion is a set of chemicals and hormones messing you up inside.'

There you are, you said it yourself. 'Emotions' are simply chemicals doing their thing. But in an atheistic world, chemicals are all there is. Chemicals and chemical reactions are amoral - 'a' = no, moral, = no moral. Thus in a purely chemical world it is meaningless to talk about right and wrong, good and bad.

Because an atheistic world is a purely chemical world, morality is meaningless in such a world.

And yet, you keep going on about good and bad...

Posted by: Sonshine

at December 30, 2007 10:41 PM

"Cant we just quote people anymore?"

Dr. CancerMan:

You're right about that of course ;-). I just thought it was funny that you left yourself open to that so I couldn't help getting a chuckle at your espense. Sorry about that. I assure you I do mean it in a friendly way.

1. Actually your point is well taken and I can see from your other posts that you're calling it as you see it. I respect that and I respect you. Whatever differences we have among ourselves on this site, we need to stick together against the threat from Jihad so I'm glad you're joining the discussion. (Perhaps you've been here before, but this is the first time I can recall encountering you). But you'll find - as I have - that you have to have a sense of humour about yourself to survive here, in part becausee we don't always agree amongst ourselves.

I would challenge you on some of your points though, but in order to avoid writing a long tome (which I'll probably end up doing, knowing me), I'll try to boil it down to one or two points that sum up the whole of the larger debate they open up as I see it in terms of its most salient points.

While I would agree with Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins in laughing ID out of the room as - what was it one of them called it? - "Creationism in a cheap tuxedo", and dismiss out of hand the naive Special Creationist doctrine treasured by Biblical fundamentalists, it seems to that in moving from this to absolute atheism, they end up in their own silliness by imputing a caricature of the beliefs of the religious world that amounts to a "big candyman in the sky" that really doesn't correspond in any meaningful way to what most of the world's religious believers, those with the benefit of a basic education at least, actually believe. This even though they disclaim the notion that Christians, for example, actually believe in "the old man, the dude and the pidgeon" (my words, not theirs) arranged in triangular formation in the sky.

To put it in the most familiar terms, they set up a straw man and then claim victory in knocking it down. In my experience - fairly extensive - of listening to preachers in mainstream denominations - both Christian and Jewish - over the years, I have found that theologians of all of these stripes, and I suspect many others as well, are generally far more in tune with the scientific mindset and critical approach to the world than these authors credit them with. I simply don't recognize this as the theology that I've learned, including what I learned the seminary that I graduated from some years ago. One of the most glaring examples of this is the way Harris tries to tar todays Jews with "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jaacob". That Jewish piety invokes this particular image, profile, identity - call it what you will - of God is no more surprizing or disedifying than is the recalling by Americans of the memory of their founding fathers (to use only one possible comparison) when they reflect on their history as a nation. Shall we say that this is ridiculous, obscruantist or regressive because many of these men owned slaves, and framed a constitution that for nearly a hundred years allowed slavery to exist as an institution in the U.S.? I would say no. It's a part of their/your? heritage. (I'm Canadian by the way, so I don't have a whole lot riding on this). The "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob", the God "of Moses", "of David", "of the prophets", etc., - all of these profiles represent their attempt to articulate, explain and pass on the tradition they had received and the presence of God to them - and with them - as they believed they experienced it in their own time through the lens of the language, experience and conceptual world available to them in their respective times and places. Like Americancs today invoking the memory of the founding fathers they recalled their earliest ancestors and what had been passed down to them, not as something fixed for all time but as something on which they had built, standing on the shoulders, as it were of giants, just as someone has famously said we all do - the entire human race - today. To reduce today's Jewish religious experience to "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob", as if any Jew today would seriously even think of offering his kid as a human sacrifice, is the lowest and most dishonest form of polemics. Likewise I can assure you that I, as a Catholic, no longer depend on the cult of martyrdom that the early Christians developed, nor does my faith limted to the medeival world of Cluny, Byzantium, the Papal States or any other medieval Catholic theocracy, or to some fantasy of rebuilding any of these. And I can assure you that neither I, nor my Church, want to reinstate the barbarities of the Spanish inquisition (though I can't help thinking that if I had lived through 850 years of Islamic occupation, as Spain did, I'd be cranky too) as if nothing has happened in Catholic consciousness since then).

2. Speaking of the Spanish inquisition, though, the attempt to let atheism off the hook for the crimes committed under Communism and other experiments cooked up in the name and under the inspiration of atheism just doesn't hold any water. It is as if Catholics were claiming that the Crusade against the Cathars had nothing to do with Catholicism. I too could obfuscate about this, claiming that it was really about the social order in Langedoc, a noble class eager to separate from the emerging French crown, etc. There is some truth - some context and perspective - to be gained from this kind of reflection in terms of evaluating it against comparable events and weighing various evaluations of it in the standards of historic objectivity, but in the end this event something for Catholics to be apalled at and to serve as an object lesson to us. The same is true of the crimes of the Communists, the Nazis, etc. in regard to their significance for today's atheists. These were deeply atheistic and anti-Christian regimes and, like the Catholicism that inspired the ideology that relentlessly crushed the Cathars, the Communist regimes were attempting to build a new world order based on the principles of scientific atheism and materialism, and the classes and nationalities that they eliminated were suppressed because they stood in the way of the achievement of this goal.

One final, brief thought: Oriana Fallaci, although an atheist, understood the value of the Christian heritage to the West, calling herself "a Christian atheist". I agree, furthermore, with Robert Spencer, when he notes that America is a Christian nation, in that its culture and achievements were shaped by a cultural heritage that it shared with its European progenitors that is hard to envision had it not been for the existence of the Christian faith in Europe. This includes the enlightenment (even if only by way of reaction against a repressive Christian social order, though I would deny that this is the case). So I hope you will not consider it narrow-minded of me to call the U.S., and Canada for that matter, a "Christian" nation. This in no way means that other traditions have no place here, only that the civil life of the nation gathers its primary inspiration and traditions from that historic reality. As a Christian I note that Israel, a Jewish state, has built a thriving pluralistic secular state in which people of my faith, and many others, live in peace and security. If I lived there I can easily imagine feeling myself a part of that nation and heritage as well, without needing to change my religion. For that matter I can imagine enjoying the atmosphere of light and colour of the celebrations of Duwali, and a deep cultural and ideological identification in the acheivements of Mahatma Ghandi and others as a Christian in India if I lived there.

I respect your right to hold your atheism. But I also point out myth generates tradition, and tradition imparts vision, and someone has rightly said "Without a vision, the people perish". A vision, the kind that can give rise to a fierce sense of conviction, one strong enough to transcend death and the fear of it, is what the non-Muslim world will need in order to survive.

Well, so much for my short post. Hope it provides some worthwhile food for thought, though, just as I've gained from Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins.

Cheers

Posted by: templar

at December 30, 2007 11:14 PM

Oops:

Not sure what happened with my numbering in the post above. Typical. It should've begun with the third paragraph after the greeting:

1. While I would agree with Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins in laughing ID out of the room as ...

(just to clear up any confusion).

Posted by: templar

at December 30, 2007 11:28 PM

You see if there are valid and invalid 'fears', then to just say that Christians believe in God because of 'fear', is a worthless statement.
---------------------------------

[R]

I never said that, I said that that christians respect the sins and god in that way because of fear of punishment, different with a pagan, who, in fact doesn't need to believe in a deity to or follow its rules to "appease" it...

-------------------------------

[R]

See above, this is the reason why you got confused about atheism in the first place
----------------------------------

-------------------------------

[R]
Yet, he is incapable to do anything, omnipotent is a lie, omnipresent? A lie as well, so it will suggest he sees everyone naked.... and it would suggest he is present in "evil"(in response to what christians say "god is present in love" )

-----------------------

then perhaps fear of God is a perfectly valid thing to feel.

---------------------

[R]

Fear is the feeling of preservation, of trying to stay alive and to run away of possible predators, being afraid of a being that a human created in his imagination is ... you can put any word in there.

What I tried to say all along is that morality based on fear of punishment and desire of reward of a god is moot, useless and completely absurd!

I hope this is the last time I have to repeat myself.
----------------------

-----------------------

[R]

I think you are trying too hard to give something for god and religion and create something that only people who believe in god should have. Have you ever thought that independent of religion or not we do moral and ethical things? If so, then what you moraly do is based on a GODDESS not GOD.

You are trying too hard on this; And is not working, what you are trying to imply, if I'm not wrong is based on a suspicious book written by a fanatical christian trying to discredit atheists. I can't remember the title nor the author, but the book talked mainly about this stuff.
-------------------------

--------------------------

[R]

Emotions is exactly like that, then you are amoral as well, idependent of religion or believing in god, what applies to me, applies to you as well, unless you are not human.

--------------------

Templar; Your post deserves an especial ...post :P It will follow after this

Posted by: Dr.CancerMan

at December 30, 2007 11:33 PM

Templar;

What you have said I agree 99%, and I would like to add as well that, whatever events in the past that people couldn't explain like we do today, they created a god for it, Zeus, or Thunder God.

Excellent post in explaining the situation;

But let me explain about the 1%, hehehe

Communism, while it was first envisioned by an atheist, it is not a atheist system, Communism merely used the non belief; So it is right to say communism used atheism, while atheism itself doesn't include communism... An example of this is While all communists are atheists some atheists are communists. Like me and hundreds of atheists that I know, both in person and online, are capitalists. Because it is our nature to own, be different and want.

The thing is, for example today, Castro allowed religion in Cuba very recently.

What happened is a system of "controlled power", the church holds a lot of power, because they can influence people...

An example of this is what big girl said, they simply boycoted a movie because it might suggest it was an atheist movie, they wouldn't go or simply dismissed the entire story because there was a rumour, or because it shows something else or a different theme.

This is the kind of power they were so afraid.

Posted by: Dr.CancerMan

at December 30, 2007 11:43 PM

DCM:

1. You said: 'What I tried to say all along is that morality based on fear of punishment and desire of reward of a god is moot, useless and completely absurd!'

Where do you get your idea that morality is based on fear of punishment and desire for reward? It's not.

2. You said: 'Emotions is exactly like that, then you are amoral as well, idependent of religion or believing in god, what applies to me, applies to you as well, unless you are not human.'

Of course, in an atheistic world, all I've said would apply to me as well.

But you just don't get it. In an atheistic world, which is a chemical world, there is no morality, because chemicals aren't moral. And because we are just chemicals in an atheistic world, we aren't moral beings either, if it is such a world.

Posted by: Sonshine

at December 30, 2007 11:51 PM

TEMPLAR:

You said: 'While I would agree with Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins in laughing ID out of the room as - what was it one of them called it? - "Creationism in a cheap tuxedo", and dismiss out of hand the naive Special Creationist doctrine treasured by Biblical fundamentalists...'

What is your gounds for such laughing and out of hand dismissial?

Posted by: Sonshine

at December 30, 2007 11:52 PM

ps;

Oh yeah, I understand that, that we need to take it on the light side... Hehe it just sometimes I feel that I need to erase or eliminate wrong ideas from peoples head. For example, sometimes people who wants to convert me(there is no shortage on that) tries to shove ID (intelligent design -- more like - Idiotic design -- by parody outdoors and jokes)in my throat, I always show evidence of evolution. Like a few topics ago, where Hugh and another atheist tried to explain atheism and defend it. I for example, I'm a jewish descendent, but is very little in my blood line;

Between Christianity and Islam, I prefer Christianity, is the lesser of the two evils. And besides, It gave more historical, cultural and artistical material than islam.

Posted by: Dr.CancerMan

at December 31, 2007 12:05 AM

Where do you get your idea that morality is based on fear of punishment and desire for reward? It's not.
------------------------------
[R]

Oh... give me patience holy macarroni in the sky! You said, that morality is based on god and religion, the morality and ethical reasons comes from religion, so, religion and its holy commandments comes from GOd itself, so what happens if you disobey or dont follow its commandments or laws? Punishment! Aka Hell, What happens if you do its bidding? Reward, aka 72 virgins.

Lets see if this example is more understantable.

--------------------------

Of course, in an atheistic world, all I've said would apply to me as well.

--------------------------

[R]

The chemicals is what influence how we act, think and behave. An example is someone who is anxious, social phobia and the sort. It is an inbalance of certain chemicals in the brain, and can be also cure by treatment or take drugs. Paroxetine is one of this drugs, which I take for that and OCD. It helps to keep this chemicals flowing and replace it.

Another example, is the rush you get in a violent situation, you will get a shot of adrenaline in your body, you vision will tunnel and you will act accordingly, sometimes it might not be stoppable for a few seconds.

What we are and what we do are based in our bodies, why do you think women get so emotional before their periods? Hormones making havoc in her body.

We live in a world made of atoms, proteins, amino acids... We live in a world where god doesnt exist, and we are the ones reponsible of our own decision, we live in a world where there is no magic and no miracle. Everything has an scientific explanation, even the ones we dont have now, we will have in a near future.

Like creationism, it wasn't long ago that people believed that everything was made by...god, or at least a jump start, or at least developed us, and that we lived the same time as the dinosaurs, or the earth has roughly 6.000 years.

Now we now, that the earth has approximately 4.6 billions of years and life began at 4.2 billions of years ago.

Posted by: Dr.CancerMan

at December 31, 2007 12:15 AM

DCM:

Do you not get it intentionally?

An atheistic world is ONLY a chemical world, because chemicals are all there is. And thus in a genuinely atheistic world there is no morality.

You said: 'We live in a world made of atoms, proteins, amino acids... We live in a world where god doesnt exist, and we are the ones reponsible of our own decision, we live in a world where there is no magic and no miracle. Everything has an scientific explanation, even the ones we dont have now, we will have in a near future.'

A very touching statement of faith.

But one that is unsupportable.

For example: 'Everything has an scientific explanation,'

So please explain the origin of the coded information carried on the genetic systems of living things. You require coded information to arise spontaneously from matter. Please supply one verifiable instance of coded information arising spontaneously, independent of mind. Just one. I will give you as many illustrations as you like of the contra position, that coded information derives from mind.

Or is the origin of the genetic information one of those areas that 'we don't have now but will have in the near future'?

And interstingly, we don't KNOW that the earth is 'approximately 4.6 billions of years and life began at 4.2 billions of years ago.' That is a belief about the past based on interpretations of some data existing in the present, but back of all, driven by the belief that there is no Creator.

To have life you have to have coded information. If you can't get coded information arising spontaneously from matter, evolution (molecules to man) could not start and so hasn't happened.

Posted by: Sonshine

at December 31, 2007 1:33 AM

Sonshine:

I regret my choice of words and the offence they've clearly caused you, and in future communications will try to be more diplomatic. But I would also ask you not to take them literally. There was considerable hyperbole employed in that statement. I don't actually laugh and I'm not as dismissive as I sounded. I reiterate that the words I quoted about "a cheap texedo" were not my own but came from one of these authors or from someone one of them quoted.

This is not the place to hold a theological debate so I will not engage in multiple posts about this, and I'll let you have the last word if you wish to about this while trying to bring some relief to your hurt feelings, but I must confess to some distress, even exasperation, at seeing the divisiveness and the waste of resources that are generated (time and human energy), the ill will and mistrust, and the waste of resources - energy, paper, bandwidth and public airwaves, not to mention distraction from other, more important social issues, by the needless controversy over science education, most particularly in the most powerful and leading nation of the world, the U.S., that have arisen from the insistence in some circles on a literal reading of the creation accounts in Genesis.

These are clearly colorful stories, meant to function as metaphors, drawn from a collection of generic Ancient Near Eastern creation myths and adapted by Biblical editors to impart certain insights from Israel's faith to its Hebrew audience, and those to whom they would eventually bring to knowledge of God's covenant, about important and basic existential issues like the relationship between God and humanity, the meaning and destiny of humanity and the reason for the existence of evil and suffering and its scope in the world, using symbols well known in the ANE, and that they are not meant to be taken as a literal, observable, scientific account of the origins of the world or a natural history. That is, by definition, the realm we call science, and this has to be respected as equally God-given and sovereign in its own sphere of competence, just as Divine revelation is sovereign in the matters of transcendent meaning and the questions of ultimate value.

I point out that the ultimate criterion of the Christian faith is not the Bible, but the person of Jesus Christ, the God-man, whom the mainstream of Christian tradition sees as an ongoing and living Word in the Christian community, the Bible as we know it today having been gathered together, by way of afterthought, a process beginning only when it was clear that Jesus would not likely return to Earth before the Apostles and other associates of Jesus had died, as an authoritative record provided by reliable witnesses who had seen and known Jesus in his physical body while he was on earth. The attachment to the literal word of scripture, not moderated either by other elements of the tradition of the Christian community, or by any outside knowledge from science, history, archaeology, literary criticism and the like, that has been created in some Christian denominations threatens to elevate the Bible, at the expense of Jesus himself, to a position similar to the Koran, a closed, ahistorical text impenetrable to scientific or critical analysis.

Worse than that, in inappropriately interfering with science education and research it it not only threatens the technical advancement that our civilization and its wealth and progress is built upon but also needlessly alienates the secular culture and its intellectuals who should be our allies in the resistance to global Jihad, and it provokes, not without reason I have to reluctantly say, the "moral equivalency" argument of religious critics i.e. "Christians, Jews and Muslims are alike, all equally dangerous" that we constantly have to fend off.

I doubt that you'll agree with me about all this - I suspect you won't - but I hope I've at least explained myself in a way that reassures you of my good intentions. Again, my apologies if my words seemed harsh or offensive.

Posted by: templar

at December 31, 2007 1:49 AM

For the sake of clarity and completeness, Sonshine, let me add this (which brings me back to the question of ID that I forgot to mention in my response to you above):

Intelligent Design really is just a simple, more or less opportunistic way of bringing God back into the picture of evolution (in an arbirary and overly concrete, physical way that He does not need to be according to historic Christian theology) while pretending to be scientific, when it isn't. It's also bad theology, because it turns God into an arbitrary meddler, and in doing so allows no emergence of a sense of things like transcendence, freedom, and ultimately, love.

Posted by: templar

at December 31, 2007 2:06 AM

TEMPLAR:

Thanks for your post. I don't feel hurt - I don't get hurt over such matters. I simply asked a question re the basis of your very sweeping comment.

And I would like to ask a whole bunch more re many of the things you've said, but will confine myself to one paragraph only.

You said: 'Worse than that, in inappropriately interfering with science education and research it it not only threatens the technical advancement that our civilization and its wealth and progress is built upon but...'

With all due respect, and not said with the intent of hurting any feelings :-), this is utter and complete nonsense.

Virtually every field of modern scientific endeavour was founded by Bible believing (though not necessarily orthodox) scientists, who studied the world and developed technology, as a result of seeking 'to think God's thoughts after him.'

Werner Von Braun, leading figure in America's space program was a Bible believing scientist. Raymond Damadian, the inventor of MIR is a young earth creationist. Several years ago he was unjustly denied a Noble Prize for the critical discovery that lead to it, largely because he is YEC.

And the list could go on and on and on and on.

There is absolutely nothing within a creationist worldview that gets in the way of the study of the world or the development of technology. In fact within it there are multiple grounds for doing both. It has been acknowledged by historians of science that a critical factor in the development of modern science was the biblical worldview that understands the world as a world of law, the product of thought, and separate and distinct from the Creator. The latter made the universe open to study and evalution, so that the Creators designs could be discovered and copied for our benefit, something which flowed directly from what is called the 'creation mandate' in Genesis 1.

I repeat, your charge is totally groundless...

Posted by: Sonshine

at December 31, 2007 2:31 AM

DCM:

Thanks for your response.

First of all my apologies for the many grammatical errors in my earlier post, which I discovered after the fact.

I think I'm overtired tonight and loosing my concentration, so I'm going to sign off after this.

I think I see your point in regard to the infiltration of religion into ideology. This is sometimes described as the influence of absolutist thinking, which, so the theory goes, atheism roots out, but which makes its way in again through the back door, even though contrary to atheism.

But I would answer that we are beings who have an innate need for a sense of fixity, of some sort of stable and predictable order of things. Given that this is the case I think that it is important for a culture to be able to recognize this search for abolutes, or for the Absolute, and channel it in appropriate ways. Traditional religion is one way - perhaps not necesarily the only way - of doing that. Patriotism, or "civic duty" might be another. And perhaps their might be others. Perhaps ideology could serve some this way. But clearly what we conventionally call "religion" is the most powerful vehicle for this because it connects human beings with a sense of their identity and place that transcends time and place and seeks to locate a source of ultimate value - a transcendent sense of ultimate good that encompasses all things.

I take issue with your assumption that for those who accept belief in a personal God, believer does what is right only because of fear of punishment. One does this, at least in the understanding of Christian theology, from the conviction that it is in the very nature and essence of the soul, of the depth of our identity as human, to seek the good, and indeed that ultimate good which we call "God". God, in love and humility, binds himself freely to clear moral categories and imperatives, as Benedict XVI so vigourously asserts. He discloses his existence to us and offers us his friendship ("grace") to reinforce that which it is already in our nature to do - the good - and by joining Himself to us, shares his own existence with us as gift, in order to fill us with an endless capacity to know and experience the good as our joy and to help us constantly better ourselves in order to satisfy the longing that is in us for the good. He communicates to us knowledge about what is good, "commandments" and the like, not because we wouldn't otherwise know any of this - we do know it, from our conscience, and from our impulses to compassion, empathy, love, etc - but to promise His help and friendship to us; even more significantly, however, he does it not just by communicating a "message" or "set of instructions" to us but by sharing with us His own life in in intimate personal union and relationship in the person of Christ so that our human powers can be forever expanded and enlarged with His infinite power and goodness to experience ever greater joy and wonder.

But, again, we seek the good not to gain some external reward, but because to do otherwise would be to war against our very nature and thus to experience only the frustration of human powers and capacities.

Posted by: templar

at December 31, 2007 4:01 AM

templar,

Good job in presentation. Keep up the good work!

For templar, Robert, Hugh, Marisol, and all others who post over at JW/DW, best wishes for a good 2008!

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106

at December 31, 2007 6:21 AM

A very touching statement of faith.
------------------------

[R]

Wrong, it is based on evidence, scientific hard facts!
It seems that you dont get it... The chemicals makes who you are!
--------------------------

[R]

Do you know RNA? Well, the DNA is and was formed originally by a pool of amino acids, boiling, and proteins in it, do you a experiment, a scientist did who managed to do what earth was like in the beginning, and showed that the materials for what life is was present? Do you know that when something fights for its life it adapts? Besides, the evidence that you will show is already known and completely re bunked, it is evidence based on emotion and highly biased.

If you were a human in the year 100, and a lightning fell, what would your explanation be? God? Or a scientific explanation?

--------------------------------

We DO know that earth is that old, it is based on calculations of C14, which is highly precise, we do know the age of the universe, based on calculations of light and its speed, distances and everything else! It seems that you simply applied a creator on something without going further down the evidence lane.

And I'll quote Templar on this
"... This is not the place to hold a theological debate so I will not engage in multiple posts about this, and I'll let you have the last word if you wish ... "

But if you wish, you can discuss with other scientists, agnostics, atheists or even christians in scientific forums who will prove to you and provide a more able and correct environment for this discussion, who will LOVE to show evidences of what I said.

Posted by: Dr.CancerMan

at December 31, 2007 10:09 AM

Templar;

Even though I don't agree with you in the last paragraph, I must admit that you did a good job in presenting the facts!

And as you said to Sonshine, this isn't the place for a theological discussion.

And you don't need to be sorry, it happens, and besides I was tired yesterday as well, and it was really early in the morning before I went to sleep.

But just to let you know, you have a fan now... me!

Posted by: Dr.CancerMan

at December 31, 2007 10:18 AM

Sheesh talk about a hijacked thread...

Posted by: Weatherob

at December 31, 2007 11:25 AM

The point hear is that free speech is being attacked. I will gladly do what is needed in order to preserve it. It can not be allowed to happen in a free society!

I will continue to pray for help in this course of action in spite of people not believing in it. And I will defend you right not to believe in it. But please don't get in my way of my beliefs!

Posted by: Weatherob

at December 31, 2007 11:29 AM

Thanks, BigCatGirl. My best to you as well, and of course to the JihadWatch crew, and all posters on this thread.

Weatherob:

You're right about the hijacking of course. Still, I think there is some value in this sort of thing, if its kept within reasonable limits. It allows an exchange of ideas that may also be participating, at least in some small way, in the building of the Jihad-resistant culture that the world needs.

My best regards!

Posted by: templar

at December 31, 2007 1:07 PM

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Our Constitutional First Amendment invalidates the OIC UN resolution.
There is no contest. We have Freedom of Speech.

Oh yes, I agree. Time to get the UN out of NYC, out of the US, and the southwest desert isn’t far enough… UIN in Bangladesh might be better… or perhaps Lahore.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours

at December 31, 2007 2:07 PM

DCM:

You said: "We DO know that earth is that old, it is based on calculations of C14, which is highly precise...It seems that you simply applied a creator on something without going further down the evidence lane."

With all due respect, C14 has nothing to do with determining ages back into billions of years. Even with the most sophisticated detection tool available today (accelerator mass spectrometry), given its half life of 5730 years, no C14 will be detectable beyond a theoretical age of 250,000 years.

What is now known by verification from some of the world's best C14 laboratories, is that you can take samples from any stratagraphic level in the fossil record, and they all contain measurable C14, indicating the whole stratographic record is under 250,000 years old. Coal tested from so-called Cenozoic (conventional date of coal 34-55 million yrs), Mesozoic (65-145 mil yrs), and Paleozoic (300-311 mil yrs) geologic era's all contained C14. Measurable C14 is also found in diamonds, which is very significant.

'...It seems that you simply applied a [no]creator [viewpoint] on something without going further down the evidence lane."

Is this one of your 'scientific hard facts!'?

------------------------
DCM:
"It seems that you dont get it... The chemicals makes who you are!"

There you've said it again.

And because chemicals make who we are according to the atheist religion - as you have explicitly said, and because chemical are amoral, humans within the atheistic religion are also amoral.

It's not just my idea. The late atheistic high priest Stephen J Gould said this explicitly in my hearing, to a packed house University audience and was appauded long and loud at the end.

Posted by: Sonshine

at December 31, 2007 2:24 PM

The idea that Islam is a religion is preposterous. And extremely dangerous.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer

at December 31, 2007 2:30 PM

Question rises; how can the westerners benefit from this law?
Even though the current legal systems are riddled with people who'd very much like to hush things down, if enough voices rise up, there will be response.

Some verses of the Quran can be considered to be discriminatory against major religions in the west.

Work on it.

Posted by: Oko

at December 31, 2007 4:46 PM

Stendec,

Great post!

So much better than my diatribe!

LOL I was having what my ex-husband and dear friend calls "a moment".

Posted by: Abscedere

at December 31, 2007 11:15 PM

Abscedere, Dumbledoresarmy,

I used to argue for (and still would prefer to see) a formal amendment to the United States Constitution to redefine Islam. Such an amendment would completely neutralize the ongoing and incessant legal jihad against us and would empower federal officers to confidently take firm action, within all the various agencies of the federal government, to protect us from Islamic assault.

I still think a formal amendment to the Constitution is entirely appropriate--it would be a permanent defense against a permanent existential threat. However, such an amendment requires a constitutional convention be called, the formal text of the change to be hammered out within slow-moving committees, and finally a multi-year process of gaining, one-by-one, ratification by at least two thirds of the fifty states.

The President, however, has the power right now to issue executive orders, which he does all the time in his capacity as head of the Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Since the Islamic assault on our civilization is an immediate and pressing issue of national security, and since national security is the primary responsibility of the Executive Branch, it is entirely appropriate for the President to take such an action.

Of course, his executive order would be immediately challenged in the Courts and tied up there. But during the subsequent nasty fight through the court system, all those doctrinal issues that we discuss daily here at JW/DW, and that the populace at large is kept ignorant of via Islamic deception and homegrown political correctness, will be brought into the national consiciousness overnight.

That is my thinking.

We will probably have to wait for the next big attack to get any action of this kind from a sitting President. But I think we should have such an executive order drafted and ready to go, for when the time comes.

Posted by: Stendec

at January 1, 2008 1:00 AM

Hi, I just looked up the General Assembly page. This was a draft resolution on 18 December. At the same time the GA presented another draft resolution wishing to eliminate intolerance or discrimination on the basis of belief, which would appear to condemn discrimination against Christians in Muslim countries as well as vice versa.

I also noted there were a number of missing 'Islamic' voters, including Somalia.

"Adraft resolution on Combating defamation of religions (document A/C.3/62/L.35) would have the Assembly express deep concern about the negative stereotyping of religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief, still in evidence in some regions of the world. The Assembly would further note, with deep concern, the intensification of the campaign to defame religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001. It would also emphasize that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which should be exercised with responsibility and may therefore be subject to limitations according to law and necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others; protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals; and respect for religions and beliefs.

The draft resolution on Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief (document A/C.3/62/L.42) would have the Assembly condemn all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief, as well as violations of freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief. It would stress that the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion be applied equally to theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, and that all believers and non-believers are entitled, without any discrimination, to the equal protection of the law. An overall rise in instances of intolerance and violence against members of many religious and other communities would be recognized with deep concern, including cases motivated by Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and Christianophobia. States would be urged to step up efforts to eliminate intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief."

Posted by: devorgilla

at January 1, 2008 8:56 AM

devorgilla,

Think about that last sentence: "States would be urged to step up efforts to eliminate intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief."

This alternate resolution is yet another Orwellian call for totalitarian state power applied to absolutely squelch critical speech and thought.

It is also self-nullifying, since, in order to "eliminate intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief" one would have to eliminate Islam, which is all about intolerance and discrimination against unbelievers. But Islam, is a "religion" or "belief," so one cannot eliminate it. Catch-22!

And so this permanent contradiction, which is completely left unaddressed by the text of this resolution, is just a convenient vehicle to justify increasing the power of nation states and the power of extra-national agencies over those nation states. Human nature must be forced to be "good," where "good" is to be defined by a central state ruling class and the societal elites (i.e., especially the people who drafted this resolution), and state power will be used to enforce this "goodness" on everyone.

The U.S. Constitution is superior in every way to this piece of UN rubbish. We need to defend the Constitution. And we need to openly criticize and condemn any "religion" or "belief" whose doctrines would take away our constitutional liberty under the rule of secular law. That imperative means that it is our duty to openly criticize and condemn Islamic doctrine.

All beliefs are not of equal merit. Islam, in particular, is severely lacking by any reasonable moral standard. And no one should be forbidden to say so, as openly and as harshly as necessary, publicly or privately.

In regards to the Constitution, I am a "strict constructionist," so I support the enumerated rights defined there. I am not a fan of the "living document" extensions of the Constitution, which are based on stare decisis and bizarre notions such as "emanations from prenumbras."

The modern "living document" trend in Constitutional law is a huge opening that aggressive totalitarian ideologies such as Islam can exploit. They can use this opening to insert their Trojan Horse doctrines, couched in soothing doublespeak language (as in the UN resolution above), in order to undermine our fundamental freedoms.

Ideally, then, we should beat the totatlitarians to the punch, with a Constitutionally enumerated reclassification of Islam from religion to hostile political cult. But the country is asleep right now, or else cowing from open confrontation because of their fear of another violent demonstration or physical attack or lawsuit, and that is what Islam wants. So an amendment will not happen anytime soon. Therefore, it is up to some sitting President to take a firm stand--to challenge the Courts by issuing an executive order.

That is what I hope for some day. In the meantime, we need to get the word out about Islamic ideology, and need to vigorously defend our right to do so.

Posted by: Stendec

at January 1, 2008 1:59 PM

Stendec:

You said: "Human nature must be forced to be "good," where "good" is to be defined by a central state ruling class and the societal elites (i.e., especially the people who drafted this resolution), and state power will be used to enforce this "goodness" on everyone."

This is one result of the denial of 'Truth' and a 'Higher Law'. 'Good' looses objective, fixed meaning and becomes whatever you want it to be - (See argument above).

Same goes for the 'living document' idea. No longer constrained by words which have fixed meanings, which were written to constrain particular behaviour, the 'words' can now be ignored on the basis of a new situation/insight, or redefined to mean whatever is wanted in line with the new, redefined, 'truth' - which could in turn be redefined again in a minute or next year, or whenever is thought advantageous.

Right can become wrong and white black, because all is in flux and nothing is fixed. Moral relativism rules.

Posted by: Sonshine

at January 1, 2008 2:30 PM

That's right, Stendec. To me this is internally contradictory. The whole thing is a crock.

Firstly, since the Quran already defames Christians, and especially Jews, should it be banned as a defamatory document, and Islam as a defamatory religion? Or should the offending Quranic verses simply be excised from all future publications in compliance with this resolution? Ditto, Hadith, etc.?

Secondly, how will the 'Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief' be enforced in Islamic countries to uphold the rights of non-Muslim minorities, currently targeted for their non-belief, since oppression of minorities is a core part of the faith?

Posted by: devorgilla

at January 1, 2008 6:30 PM

Hi Stendec and all, I've just remembered a catch phrase I came across on an Islamist rant:

'liberal intolerance'.

Thought that was priceless!

By this is meant views like yours and mine that would have no truck with various species of fascism.

This is exactly what this resolution sets itself up to attack: 'liberal intolerance'!

Posted by: devorgilla

at January 1, 2008 6:37 PM

"Religion is just an ideology, Richard Dawkins said so thoroughly in "god Delusion" Book, Religion deserves no extra respect than any other subject we discuss." Posted by: Dr.CancerMan

The only reason anyone is talking about "respect for religion" now is that adherents of a certain, um, religion, have a propensity to get very violent when their religion is perceived to be insulted. People are scared to death. That's all this is about. They've looked fanaticism fully in its ugly contorted face and are backing off in terror: "Okay, okay, I'll respect your religion! I'll respect your religion! Now please, don't kill me!"

Although I don't share Dr. CancerMan's disdain for Christianity, I agree with him that religion deserves no extra respect than any other subject. The fact that people have very strong feelings about religious belief is a very poor argument for silencing others' opinions about it. Laws against blasphemy have never been about protecting people's feelings; they've been about keeping people under control and keeping the religious elites in power. That’s where the rage comes from; it's the fear of loss of power, whether real or imagined.

I also believe there is a fundamental difference between modern-day Christianity and Islam in the way so-called "blasphemy" is interpreted. A Christian hearing someone say "Jesus can go to hell" interprets this as "I do not accept your belief," and feels sorrow but not anger. A Muslim who hears the same thing about Muhammed instead hears, "I will not submit to your power" and feels rage. The former does not hear a personal put-down in the words, but the latter does. To an Islamist, they are literally "fighting words."

The liberal elites and the pussies of the UN all know this; they just don't dare to admit it. Deep down they really fear and detest the Islamists; who wouldn't? You just know that while they spout all these liberal platitudes their little Oxford/Harvard-educated brains are thinking, "Who are these freaks, and why am I having to have dinner with them?" But like crocodiles, they keep feeding them in the hope that they will eventually be satisfied and go away. I for one will not jump in to save them when they inevitably find themselves on the menu.

Posted by: angloirishslav

at January 1, 2008 10:04 PM

Templar: "I point out that the ultimate criterion of the Christian faith is not the Bible, but the person of Jesus Christ, the God-man, whom the mainstream of Christian tradition sees as an ongoing and living Word in the Christian community."

Exactly! Which is why I am bewildered by the "Young Earth Creationists" and their good-cop sidekicks, the "Intelligent Designers." Why can one not be a Christian and also be free to use his or her amazing God-given brains to deduct, from THE EVIDENCE put in front of his or her eyes, answers to questions about the origin and age of the earth and of the universe? Do some of them really believe, as I have heard, that either God planted this false evidence as a way of testing their faith, or the devil did as a way of leading them away from God? Why do they have to convince themselves of this rubbish? Maybe I was just raised in too liberal a Christian faith, one that did not perceive any threat to faith in the study of life or physical sciences, nor any inherent contradiction. Why is so threatening to some Christians to be told that the earth is over 4 billion years old, and the universe even older? Why do these numbers matter, if the God they believe in is infinite, as is the God I believe in? If God is infinite, His existence does not and should not require physical proof. Why I say to an atheist, "I believe in God," there is nothing they can do to prove that my belief is wrong. When a creationist says, "The Earth is only a few thousand years old," a 10-year-old primary school student can throw in his face physical evidence totally contradicting him. Why does a supremely intelligent scientist have to destroy his credibility and reputation by maintaining a belief in something no more plausible than Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy? How does that make him a better Christian than I am, or all the fine Christian people who taught me science as it should be taught? Please enlighten me on this.

Posted by: angloirishslav

at January 1, 2008 10:33 PM

angloirshslav:

You said, along with other equally dismmissive statements: "Why can one not...also be free to use his or her amazing God-given brains to deduct, THE EVIDENCE put in front of his or her eyes, answers to questions about the origin and age of the earth and of the universe?...When a creationist says, "The Earth is only a few thousand years old," a 10-year-old primary school student can throw in his face physical evidence totally contradicting him."

I wonder if you could please enumerate this EVIDENCE that you think is so simple and straight forward. What physical evidence so clearly and totally contradicts a young earth?

You also said: "Do some of them really believe, as I have heard, that either God planted this false evidence as a way of testing their faith, or the devil did as a way of leading them away from God?"

The answer is, "No they do not believe such rubbish." It is a groundless strawman used to wilfully denigrate others...

Posted by: Sonshine

at January 2, 2008 1:08 AM

Creationism is bad science and even worse theology. Firstly, bad science, because you cannot use 'natural' (ie, rational, or ordinary) means to understand the 'supernatural'. So that's a contradiction in terms. Secondly, bad theology, because who the hell as we to know the mind of God? Are we prophets? God-men? That's utter blasphemy, and anybody who thinks they can do so is a dangerous crank on par with the imposter from Mecca whose adherents are currently causing so much havoc in this world.

Posted by: devorgilla

at January 2, 2008 1:37 PM

devorgilla:

You said: "Creationism is bad science and even worse theology. Firstly, bad science, because you cannot use 'natural' (ie, rational, or ordinary) means to understand the 'supernatural'. So that's a contradiction in terms."

This is a facile argument. Who says you can't? Those who want to preserve the present stacking of the deck by philosophical naturalism, which excludes a Creator from discussion by definitions, that's who.

Origins science is like forensic science which looks for fingerprints and things which betray purposeful agents. Philosophical Naturalism says BEFORE ANY INQUIRY STARTS, that there is no purposeful agent and no fingers to leave prints, thus it finds none. But then screams that any who allow the possibility of both are unscientific!

--------------------------

You said: "Secondly, bad theology, because who the hell as we to know the mind of God? Are we prophets? God-men? That's utter blasphemy,"

Pardon? Blasphemy? You must be kidding!

And here you go again - defining what 'God' is like to suit yourself (unknowable), then charging anyone who violates your definition as committing blasphemy! Can't you do better than that?

--------------------

You also said: "...and anybody who thinks they can do so is a dangerous crank on par with the imposter from Mecca whose adherents are currently causing so much havoc in this world."

An extension of your self-serving and false statement above which leads you to a totally groundless 'equivalence' argument.

If Islam is going to be beaten, opposition to it needs to be grounded in truth, and clear, precise thinking, not shonky stuff like you've served up.

Posted by: Sonshine

at January 2, 2008 2:46 PM

devorgilla:

Further to your statement: "Secondly, bad theology, because who the hell as we to know the mind of God? Are we prophets? God-men? That's utter blasphemy..."

This presupposes, as I said, that the Creator is unknowable. However there is very accessible evidence that the Creator is in fact knowable and thus refutes your claim.

The universe contains not just matter and energy, but also information. Obviously this present exchange is now part of the information in the universe. Minds are meeting at an informational level (or some may say passing each other!) and so communication (?) is occurring. At least on the basis of it there is an interchange occurring!

But there is information in the universe that is not of human origin and yet is also understandable. The genetic systems of living things contains coded information which human beings are beginning to read and understand, even if only at a superficial level. This information came from the mind of God and was written down on molecules which we now read and understand. Thus we can understand something that comes from the mind of God, and so your claim is refuted.

Posted by: Sonshine

at January 2, 2008 4:23 PM

Sonshine, you may know the mind of God. In Christian humility, I place myself well beneath His wisdom.
However, not below yours. So I will try to answer your points.
Firstly:
'Origins science is like forensic science which looks for fingerprints and things which betray purposeful agents. Philosophical Naturalism says BEFORE ANY INQUIRY STARTS, that there is no purposeful agent and no fingers to leave prints, thus it finds none. But then screams that any who allow the possibility of both are unscientific!'
That's simply not true. Naturalism accepts that there is a rational pattern to be detected in nature. This fundamental insight made European science develop in the first place. It was a unique insight acquired from the Greeks, those great metaphysicians. Other civilizations have not developed such an insight. To the ancient Chinese, for instance, nature was simply inscrutable. There was no point in trying to understand nature because nature was chaotic. Only the human world possessed order. The Greeks believed otherwise. And so do we. Chinese technology never developed because there was no attempt to understand its theoretical base - (science) because it was supposed there was none.
But though we believe nature to be rational, and try to fathom some of its secrets, we simply cannot know whether this is due to an intelligent designer or not because our intellect can never equate to God's. We may suspect it, but we can only take this on faith, not on ‘evidence’.
What makes faith spiritually superior to reason is that we can't have proof. It is a test because it defies reason. It would be very easy to have faith if we could have definitive proof. But this would make faith shallow. Checking out God would be as easy as checking out somebody's CV. Or reading a bus timetable. When Paul said there were three things which abideth, he said ‘faith, hope and charity’; not ‘faith, hope, and reason’.
Your second point:
'This presupposes, as I said, that the Creator is unknowable. However there is very accessible evidence that the Creator is in fact knowable and thus refutes your claim.'
This is called spiritual materialism or pantheism. It is a blasphemy, because it suggests our puny little intellects can somehow ‘grasp’ God's, and it equates His divine knowledge (which passes all understanding) with our worldly knowledge of events and things which are finite. It 'reduces' God to our puny little selves. It is the ultimate in reductionism.
The Church since its inception accepted the philosophical division of science (Natural Philosophy) and theology or metaphysics (knowledge of the divine, or supernatural). And never the twain shall meet. Creationists are innovators who are overturning 2000 years of the Church’s theological teaching.
In the early Church a monk named Pelagius claimed to see the hand of God in nature but this pantheistic blasphemy was refuted by Augustine. Despite this, pantheism of various sorts continues to haunt the Church and Creationism is just the latest spate.

Posted by: devorgilla

at January 2, 2008 8:27 PM

devorgilla:

You said: "Naturalism accepts that there is a rational pattern to be detected in nature...But though we believe nature to be rational, and try to fathom some of its secrets, we simply cannot know whether this is due to an intelligent designer or not because our intellect can never equate to God's. We may suspect it, but we can only take this on faith, not on ‘evidence’."

Every person who has ever lived has taken things 'on faith', so the question of whether or not 'faith' is exercised is not an issue. If we are going to talk of faith the relevant question is, 'On/in what is the faith placed?'. Something adequate/trustworthy or not?

The Philosophical Naturalist says that 'Nature' is all there is, and takes 'on faith' as you say, that the world is rational. (At least they used to. Less of them are doing so today.) But if Nature is all there is, why should the world be rational? There is absolutely no reason for it to be so as it is grounded in an ultimately mindless universe. Thus trust in the rationality of the world from a PN point of view is baseless/irrational. Science largely kicked off because the founders of modern science believed there was a rational Creator who made a rational/understandable world, and thus they could go out and 'think God's thoughts after him' as they took the world apart to see how it worked, and praise the Creator for the Genuis he displayed in his handiwork. Any rationality that the PN view has is not an inherent part of that worldview but is stolen capital from the Christian worldview.

The Christian Faith is not faith as you describe it: "What makes faith spiritually superior to reason is that we can't have proof. It is a test because it defies reason."

Christian Faith/Worldview does not defy nor denigrate reason, nor is beyond proof, although it needs to be kept in mind that both reason and proof require faith for all people everywhere. There is nothing superior in anyway about a belief that is beyond challenge or check because it is locked up in a persons head. A belief that is beyond challenge or check, does not touch the real world and is irrelevant.

--------------------------

You said: "This is called spiritual materialism or pantheism. It is a blasphemy, because it suggests our puny little intellects can somehow ‘grasp’ God's, and it equates His divine knowledge (which passes all understanding) with our worldly knowledge of events and things which are finite. It 'reduces' God to our puny little selves. It is the ultimate in reductionism."

What I described is not pantheism. Pantheism says that 'Pan = everything, is Theos = God'. All I said was God is knowable, I didn't say 'totally/exhaustively knowable'. The proof I gave of this was that something that comes from the mind of God - the genetic information - is understandable to some degree by humans. I notice that you did not even refer to this. Forensic science does not say that the fingerprints/artifacts etc of intelligent/purposeful agents ARE THE AGENTS, but are evidence LEFT BY the agents. This message is not me, but composed by me and sent into cyberspace to be read by others. And you have applied the logic of forensic science because you have recognised like messages as coming from intelligent agents, and replied to them. (The level of intelligence you may question but that is not the point.)

So...seeing you are totally wrong about faith and totally wrong about pantheism, you are totally wrong to assert seeking fingerprints of God is worse than a waste of time, and that creationism is pantheism. You need to go back and do some more homework.

Posted by: Sonshine

at January 2, 2008 9:46 PM

'But if Nature is all there is, why should the world be rational?'

I never said Nature was all there is. This is your conjecture of what I meant. Of course there may be more than just nature, but like all else, we must take this on faith, because we cannot 'prove' it one way or the other. The transcendant is not knowable through reason or through science. If it were, it would cease to be transcendent. It would cease to be supernatural.

You are perfectly entitled to your beliefs that you see God's fingerprints everywhere in genetic codes and the 'miraculous' aspects of nature, etc.. and this proves his existence. (Emphasis added, because this 'miraculous' is allegorically speaking). I don't dispute this. I just dispute what you call it. Your beliefs are not science, they are theology. And a materialist theology that is, sorry, pantheism, against which the Church has fought long and hard battles over many centuries, because in its view, it undermined true faith and was essentially pagan. Maybe the Church was wrong, (Pelagius certainly thought so) but there you have it. Augustine's theology was accepted.

'Thus trust in the rationality of the world from a PN point of view is baseless/irrational.'

Well, no it's not, actually. It is perfectly rational because the theory of science can be rationally tested: science works, that's why science is 'real'. If science didn't work then I agree there would indeed be no point in believing in it; that would be irrational. Science works; magic doesn't work.

Christian religion, however, is not magic, the performance of tricks or attempt to bring God to heel and make him immanent through manipulation of the natural world. Do you remember Simon Magus? He was sent packing. Christian faith is profoundly moral, not material, and derives from something transcendent that our rational mind cannot grasp, but our hearts can sense.

That is the essence of Christian faith, and is why the Church has always opposed mixing Natural Philosophy with metaphysics, as is the Creationists' aim.

Posted by: devorgilla

at January 2, 2008 10:30 PM

devorgilla

You said: "I never said Nature was all there is. This is your conjecture of what I meant. Of course there may be more than just nature, but like all else, we must take this on faith, because we cannot 'prove' it one way or the other. The transcendant is not knowable through reason or through science. If it were, it would cease to be transcendent. It would cease to be supernatural."

In practical terms, I can't see how what you've said is any different to saying 'Nature is all there is'. Your 'transcendant' appears to be so utterly transcendant that it doesn't affect the material world, and evidence of it can't be seen anywhere in the material world. This is pretty much the same as saying it does not exist. For all practical purposes it is the same.

But 'transcendant' does not necessarily mean 'utterly transcendant' at all. 'Transcendant' means above, higher than, of higher value, and such like. The transcendance you talk of is most certainly not the transcendance attributed to the Creator in the Bible. The Creator made the material world, in which 'his eternal power and divine nature are clearly seen so the people are without excuse'. In other words, his fingerprints are everywhere and obvious, and you are held responcible on the basis of this fact.

Further the transcendant Creator speaks in a variety of ways. He has spoken the genetic information into being so that all life - including our life - runs on the words of the Creator encrypted on material/chemical molecules. He spoke in audible voice to Moses and the Israelites and revealed himself such that we can know him, etc. He spoke by entering his creation in a material body and living among us so people touched and handled him and eventually nailed him to a cross, and placed him in a grave. But his material body - though with different properties - came out of the grave so the grave is empty. And in that state Jesus said, "Handle me and see. A spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.

If this is too material/not spiritual enough for you, so be it, that is what the Bible outlines.

--------------------

You said: "Your beliefs are not science, they are theology. And a materialist theology that is, sorry, pantheism, against which the Church has fought long and hard battles over many centuries, because in its view, it undermined true faith and was essentially pagan."

All discussion of origins is framed within a theological framework, even the discussion of atheists.

But what I have outlined has nothing - REPEAT NOTHING - to do with pantheism. As I said, pantheism says God is everything and everything is God. I never said that is my position. Mine is that a transcendant Creator created the creation to be separate and distinct from himself, and the creation includes the material realm which he pronounced Very Good at the end of Creation Week. Again, if that is materialism so be it.

(Materialism as philosophical position is the belief that matter/energy is all there is.)

--------------------------

You said: the world "...is perfectly rational because the theory of science can be rationally tested: science works, that's why science is 'real'. If science didn't work then I agree there would indeed be no point in believing in it; that would be irrational. Science works; magic doesn't work."

You misunderstand, or did not read what I wrote. All that you have written here in support of your claim presupposes an underlying rationality to the world/universe, yet this is lacking Philosophical Naturalism. Seeing Naturalism does not provide its adherants with a basis for rationally understanding the world, they flog the basis illegitimately from somewhere else (mostly unconsciously - they don't even know they have done it), explicitly, from the Biblical worldview within which rationality is an inherent aspect. The rationality in the creation derives from the Creator's rationality.

----------------

You said: "Christian faith is profoundly moral, not material, and derives from something transcendent that our rational mind cannot grasp, but our hearts can sense."

This sounds very profound and spiritual but isn't.

Yes, the Christian Faith is profoundly moral. Why? Because the Creator of the universe is a moral being and has built aspects of his moral being into the universe. Further, he has a law which he has built into mankind - as conscience - and also revealed in words so we can explicilty know it and live by it. Further yet, eventually we each will be judged for good or ill, by this law.

-----------------------------

You said: "That is the essence of Christian faith, and is why the Church has always opposed mixing Natural Philosophy with metaphysics, as is the Creationists' aim."

All 'Natural Philosophy' - of any sort, even Big Bang cosmology is riddled with metaphysics inescapably...

As I understand it the gnostics couldn't handle the 'materialism' of the Biblical Faith and so denied that 'God' had anything to do with the material world.

Posted by: Sonshine

at January 3, 2008 2:34 AM

I said above: "I think there is some value in this sort of thing, ..."

On second thought ...

Posted by: templar

at January 3, 2008 2:31 PM

templar:

You said: "I said above: "I think there is some value in this sort of thing, ..."

On second thought ..."

In Islam, the West at present faces perhaps the biggest threat it has ever faced. But it faces it precisely when it is the least philosophically equipped to oppose it. As well as dealing with the threat as we face it at present, we also need to philosophically get ourselves together so that we have real substance to our opposition. Armies and war are all very well, and are needed - armies definitely, war maybe at times - but more important than both are the ideas that motivate us and provide insight as to how we should act/respond etc.

The successful resistance to Islam in the past came from a Christian understanding of the world, however imperfectly that was understood or implimented. Secularism/materialism/atheism/ political correctness, which are all intertwined, provides an insufficient ideological basis to oppose Islam, thus the discussion...

Posted by: Sonshine

at January 3, 2008 3:54 PM

AngloIrishSlav asked:

"Why does a supremely intelligent scientist have to destroy his credibility and reputation by maintaining a belief in something no more plausible than Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy? How does that make him a better Christian than I am, or all the fine Christian people who taught me science as it should be taught? Please enlighten me on this"

I wish I could, but I don't get it either.

"Secularism/materialism/atheism/ political correctness, which are all intertwined, provides an insufficient ideological basis to oppose Islam, thus the discussion..."

Posted by Sonshine

Yes, I get it. I even said something similar myself (though perhaps not as bluntly), which you'll notice if you read carefully my posts to DCM. So do a lot of other posters here.

I just think, as others seem to, that you are getting hung up - and extending an argument of questionable value - on a secondary point, one unrelated to the topic of the thread, one not at all necesary to challenging materialism, atheism, secularism or any other error, and one that, as I've noted above, probably serves only to irritate and discourage certain other readers who share our concern about the matter that IS at the heart of the thread.

Posted by: templar

at January 3, 2008 6:21 PM

Thank you Templar and all. We each have our lights.

Though the darkness surrounded the light, the light was not overcome.

Posted by: devorgilla

at January 3, 2008 8:43 PM

Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.