tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-53886443955562547212024-02-20T10:27:10.752-08:00Means & EndsA. Zoroasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07473665017762017780noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5388644395556254721.post-272941726544716942012-08-01T14:47:00.001-07:002012-08-08T04:30:56.120-07:00More Muslim Censors<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Well, I wasn’t going to post here until I finished the next task that I’m working on, but as the incomparable Robbie Burns wrote:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: blue;">The best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men gang aft agley…</span></blockquote>
<div>
Anyway, this time the disruption arose from the website <i><a href="http://www.loonwatch.com/" target="_blank">loonwatch</a></i>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It’s quite a website. I first visited it a couple of months ago, after hearing about an atrocious comment that was posted there by an Egyptian, basically saying that Robert Spencer (of <a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/" target="_blank">JihadWatch</a>) should be killed. And they call people who criticize them “loons”!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
To form opinions about <i>loonwatch</i>, readers should visit the site. If you should be inclined to comment on some of their “stories”, however, then once again in the case of dealing with Muslim websites, be prepared for some heavy-handed censorship. The purpose of this post is to provide an example of such censorship, to which I (“Nick McConnell”) just finished being subjected.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Below, I’ll first quote the relevant “<a href="http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/07/lou-ann-zelenik-uses-abacus-to-figure-out-islam-is-15-religion-85-political/" target="_blank">story</a>” and then quote the comments, as they now appear. In addition, though (and in a simpler time sequence), I’ve added (and colored) my comments that are still (after two days!) “awaiting moderation”, i.e., the Muslim censors are apparently too afraid to permit them to be posted. The “story” follows:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
<span style="color: purple;"><b>Lou Ann Zelenik Uses Abacus to Figure Out Islam is 15% Religion, 85% Political</b></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: purple;">OK, so I don’t know how Zelenik came up with these numbers, but she’s sticking to them:</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="color: blue;"> Zelenik: “15% Of Islam Is A Religion, 85% Political.”</span></b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;">(newschannel5)</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: blue;">NASHVILLE, Tenn.- The question of religion is playing a major role in one of the most heated congressional primary races in the country.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: blue;">Republican Lou Ann Zelenik is challenging incumbent republican Diane Black in the sixth congressional district. When asked if she believed if Islam was a real religion, Zelenik said she believed it to be mostly political.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: blue;">“I consider 15 percent of Islam a religion, 85 percent political. It’s a total way of life. The only ones who do not call Islam a religion are the Muslims because it’s not a religion,” said Zelenik.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: blue;">News Channel 5 Investigative reporter Ben Hall asked Zelenik if she felt Islam was a real religion or something else Zelenik was clear.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: blue;">“I will tell you I don’t agree with everything that they say in the Islamic religion or ideology or whatever you want to call it, but I think it has been established by the Federal government and it’s protected as a religion and that’s what I am going to abide by is the law,” she said.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: blue;">The entire interview of both candidates, including their take on the negative ads that have been such a big part of this campaign will air on Inside Politics on News Channel 5+ at 7 p.m. on July 27 or at 5 a.m. Sunday, July 29 on News Channel 5.</span></blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;"><b>17 Comments For This Post</b></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;">Sir David (Illuminati membership number 5:32) Warning Contains Irony Says:</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;">July 29th, 2012 at 10:37 am</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I’m confused. So she thinks the federal govts job is to decide what a religion is? Then she decides Islam is 15% religion and 85% Political (not sure what that means by political) mmmmm sounds like she is nuts to me. Sir David</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;">Steve Says:</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;">July 29th, 2012 at 10:47 am</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
most religions are political</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;">Fred Says:</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;">July 29th, 2012 at 11:36 am</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Orthodox Jews also consider Judaism to be a complete way of life, too. (The Jewish Halacha is analogous to Shariah.) I wonder if she would make the same argument regarding orthodox Jews?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;">Mohammad Says:</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;">July 29th, 2012 at 12:13 pm</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Don’t know what she’s smoking, im a muslim, I call it a religion.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;">CriticalDragon1177 Says:</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;">July 29th, 2012 at 12:52 pm</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
@Emperor I wonder how she came up with those numbers, probably just pulled them out of thin air.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;">Nick McConnell Says:</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;">July 29th, 2012 at 12:55 pm</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Well, Steve, I can agree with you that “most religions are political” (or maybe better: most organized religions have been and continue to be involved in politics), but there are features of Islam that distinguish it from “approved” political activities in Christianity.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Thus, writers of the New Testament seem to have adopted the ideas of the Stoic philosopher Epictetus, whose book “The Discourse” states (Book Three):</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
“But the soul will never reject the manifest appearance of the good, any more than persons will reject Caesar’s coin… When then the coin which another uses is a different coin, if a man presents this coin, he receives that which is sold for it.”</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I expect that the above idea is the origin of the famous line in the New Testament (e.g., at Luke 20, 25) that starts, “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”, which is interpreted by many (if not most) Christians as support for the separation of “church and state”.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In contrast, fundamentalist Islam doesn’t recognize a distinction between “mosque and state”. For example, as “the right-hand man of the founder of Pakistan” and “prominent Islamic scholar” Allama Pervez (1903-85) wrote:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
“Islam is not a ‘religion’ in the ordinary sense of the word. ‘Religion’ is the English equivalent for the Arabic word Mazhah, which does not occur even once in the whole of the Holy Quran. The Quran has, instead, used the word Addeen for Islam, which means a particular way of life.”</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Thus, the basic document of Islam (the Quran) seems to make it clear that Islam was never meant to be “just” a religion; instead, it was to be an all-encompassing ideology, similar in extent to Communism. That many modern Muslims seek to separate “mosque and state” is an innovation welcomed by “secular Muslims” but abhorred by Islamic fundamentalists.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;">mindy1 Says:</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;">July 29th, 2012 at 2:10 pm</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
WTF is in the water in that state D:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;">Nassir H. Says:</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;">July 29th, 2012 at 3:30 pm</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
@Nick McConnell, you’re probably one of the best Islamic scholars on the web, Ph.D. in Islamic Studies from the University of Wikipedia and all. We can tell from the misleading quotations you got straight from the Wikipedia article about Allama Pervez.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In contrast, fundamentalist Islam doesn’t recognize a distinction between “mosque and state”. For example, as “the right-hand man of the founder of Pakistan” and “prominent Islamic scholar” Allama Pervez (1903-85) wrote:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
“Islam is not a ‘religion’ in the ordinary sense of the word. ‘Religion’ is the English equivalent for the Arabic word Mazhah, which does not occur even once in the whole of the Holy Quran. The Quran has, instead, used the word Addeen for Islam, which means a particular way of life.”</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Please do tell where you got the quotation describing Allama Pervez as a “prominent Islamic scholar.” There’s a reason why you didn’t try back up your nonsense with evidence; the Wikipedia article you got your “information” from actually says Pervez was a “prominent Quranist Islamic scholar.” Note how you left out “Quranist” because it clearly indicates that his views were largely rejected by the Islamic mainstream</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
You insinuate that he is a “fundamentalist,” yet you don’t really back up this claim with anything other than huffing and puffing about what he thinks about the word “mazhah.” In fact it is clear that he is anything but a fundamentalist: he rejected Hadith, denied that ‘Aisha was 9 when she married the Prophet, criticized the Jamaat-e-Islami, and was palpably anticlerical. He thinks premodern Muslim rulers fabricated the Hadith.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Your quote describing him as Jinnah’s “right hand man” is again from the Wikipedia article – although it’s worth mentioning that no citation is given for this in the article itself. Personally, I had never heard of Allama Pervez before your rant. Not that him being associated with Jinnah would matter. As mentioned, he was quite unorthodox in his views. Jinnah himself was liberal when it came to Islam. In fact, the loony “Ibn Warraq” claims (falsely) that Jinnah was an atheist. (Yet another case of loonies contradicting each other left and right, but that discussion is for another time).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now, a word about Pervez’s claim about “mazhah.” I think he means “madhab” (i.e. doctrine, which is also used to describe Islamic schools of jurisprudence) not “mazhah”—I have no idea where he got that word, though it’s probably related to the fact that South Asians sometimes pronounce the Arabic “dh” as “z.” As for “addeen,” both my Arabic dictionary and Google Translate render it as “religion.” But apparently it’s more complicated then that.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Anyways, congratulations, you’re a moron.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;">Nick McConnell Says:</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;">July 29th, 2012 at 4:25 pm</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Nassir, I may be a moron; others can form their own opinions. In that regard, I invite them to check out my website (at http://zenofzero.net/ ), where they’ll find that, in fact, at least some others don’t consider me to be a moron, e.g., I do have my Ph.D.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Meanwhile, though, your response has resulted in a more significant charge against you (than your claim that I’m a moron), namely, that you’re impolite. As a result, I’ll not communicate with you further.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Yet, for others, there’s another point that might be worthwhile considering. Whereas a religion is probably best defined by the people who practice it (rather than via assessments by any “scholars”) and whereas I wouldn’t be surprised if roughly 85% of the Egyptians who voted in their recent elections expressed their desire for Islamic parties (and about 15% for secularists), then perhaps such results are the basis of Zelenik’s statement.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;">Anj Says:</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;">July 29th, 2012 at 7:00 pm</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Ouch nasser! That’s gotta hurt. Nick next time remember your arse from your elbow! Good job Nasser!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;">Octane Says:</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;">July 29th, 2012 at 7:38 pm</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
[“Well, Steve, I can agree with you that “most religions are political” (or maybe better: most organized religions have been and continue to be involved in politics), but there are features of Islam that distinguish it from “approved” political activities in Christianity.”]</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is an odd statement to make. Since really Christianity especially now and certainly in the past has been the very essence of a political ideology. Much of which we see displayed in political policy from abortion, gay marriage, political imagery/statements made by politicians to governmental operations wars, holidays. The list goes on. Here Christian belief is a system it dictates reproductive rights, who you sleep with, has a legal system that states its based on Judeo-Christian law, Sundays are a day of rest so everything should be closed technically etc. To summarize Christian beliefs dictate, marriage, sex, work, war etc. So to state that Christianity is not a system by itself is incredibly misleading.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
[In contrast, fundamentalist Islam doesn’t recognize a distinction between “mosque and state”. For example, as “the right-hand man of the founder of Pakistan” and “prominent Islamic scholar” Allama Pervez (1903-85) wrote: “Islam is not a ‘religion’ in the ordinary sense of the word. ‘Religion’ is the English equivalent for the Arabic word Mazhah, which does not occur even once in the whole of the Holy Quran. The Quran has, instead, used the word Addeen for Islam, which means a particular way of life.”]</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
By your classification Vatican City is pretty much done in for because here we have no separation of church and state. So does that mean that Christianity is a political system? Especially since the Vatican is considered a country/state.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
[“Thus, the basic document of Islam (the Quran) seems to make it clear that Islam was never meant to be “just” a religion; instead, it was to be an all-encompassing ideology, similar in extent to Communism. That many modern Muslims seek to separate “mosque and state” is an innovation welcomed by “secular Muslims” but abhorred by Islamic fundamentalists.”]</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Ok here is a question what exactly makes Christianity a religion? What is the criteria for making or constituting a religion? List those down and lets compare. I await your reply.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Octane Says:</div>
<div>
July 29th, 2012 at 7:39 pm</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Oh and the above was directed @Nick McConnell</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;">Nick McConnell Says:</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;">July 30th, 2012 at 3:04 am</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: red;">[Note: I’m inserting this post, here, at an earlier time than the next post, so the reading would be a little easier.]</span></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Octane, I agree with your first paragraph. Note, however, that I didn’t write (nor even mean to suggest) that: “Christianity is not a system by itself.” I agree that making such a statement would be “incredibly misleading”, but again, I didn’t make it!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What’s important is that, during the past few hundred years (in large measure thanks to the intelligence and bravery of, initially, such people as Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison), most Western nations have erected a “wall” to separate religion from politics. To be sure, it’s a wall that religious fundamentalists (of course including Christian fundamentalists) continuously attempt to breach, but in general, the wall continues to hold. Unfortunately, though, such “secularism” has yet to be established in most Muslim countries.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I also agree that your example of the Vatican conflicts with the general trend of secularism in the West. But the Vatican is a relic of the past, the last holdout of Europe’s Dark Ages, now withered to only 44 hectares, and surely it won’t be much longer until it vanishes with the ignorance that created it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As for your questions, “what exactly makes Christianity a religion?”, and “what is [are] the criteria for making or constituting a religion?”, my opinion is that, fundamentally, it’s the same as the source of all organized religions, i.e., as the French writer Stendhal (Marie-Henri Beyle, 1783–1842) wrote: “All religions are founded on the fear of the many and the cleverness of the few.”</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
With respect to your request for a “list” (of details) for “making or constituting a religion”, I’m sorry, but responding to your request would be, not only onerous, but (I think) rather superfluous. The essence of all religions is dogma (i.e., “principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true”); the essence of secularism (or humanism) is to base decisions, not on dogma, but on evidence.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Thus, in the viewpoint of secularists (or humanists), i.e., those who realize that in the open system known as ‘reality’, the best we can do is ascertain the probability that some claim is true (see, e.g., http://zenofzero.net/docs/T1_Truth_&_Knowledge.pdf), dogma doesn’t belong in the public forum. If a claim is made in the public forum (e.g., about “abortion, gay marriage… wars, holidays”) then secularists demand to see data that support the claim, and if no evidence (only dogma) is offered to support it, then we reject it as religious rubbish.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: purple;">Garibaldi Says:</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;">July 29th, 2012 at 10:57 pm</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It’s good to see you commenting again Nassir.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;">Sir David ( Illuminati membership number 5:32) Warning Contains Irony Says:</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;">July 30th, 2012 at 1:07 am</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I wonder if Ms Zelenik knows that 48% of statistics are made up! Also nice one Nassir. I like the University of Wiki line </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As for Nick McConnel you may have a point in where Ms Zelenik got her figures from although I dont see the connection myself and would not votes for someone who does not understand mathermatics never mind she is obviously a nut, nice to see you do have a brain when you try. We like people who have their own opinions here and dont like those who just copy from wiki or the works of Robert Spencer , TROP or other sites with out giving their sources. If you have a Phd ,why drop your standards?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Sir David Vice President Leftwing Mooslim Alliance West Anjou Branch</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="color: red;"><b>Submitted but Censored (i.e., it sat there, “awaiting moderation”, but never appeared):</b></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">“Sir David”</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">Re. your apparent suggestion that I don’t supply sources (for quotations), realize on the one hand, that many websites that permit comments don’t permit links (or, as seems to be the case here and is definitely the case at Al Jazeera, adding links delays the appearance of comments; e.g., here, my comments don’t appear for hours, “awaiting moderation” – and at Al Jazeera, sometimes the comments with links never appear!); consequently, I tend to avoid providing links. And on the other hand, when I put quotations in quotation marks (as I did, for the quotes you mention), then it’s easy to find the source using a search engine such as Google’s (as what’s-his-name apparently, easily did, who also apparently has troubles with Wikipedia – which is something he should take up with Wikipedia, not me).</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">In sum, then, I reject any suggestion that I have dropped my standards. I do admit, however, to modifying my normal procedure (e.g., see my <a href="http://zenofzero.net/" target="_blank">online book</a>) to conform to the changing reality of the internet world.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">And whereas you apparently appreciate math and question if I do have my Ph.D., I trust that you’ll have a satisfying experience if you’ll read the following chapters in my book:</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">http://zenofzero.net/docs/IhHypothesesandProbabilities.pdf</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">http://zenofzero.net/docs/T1_Truth_&_Knowledge.pdf</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">http://zenofzero.net/docs/T2_Truth_&_Understanding.pdf</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">Incidentally, if you are competent in Bayes’ method, perhaps you’ll alert me if you know if the material at the start of the third chapter (referenced above) has been published. I don’t think it has been – and I obviously consider it important.</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;">Hatethehaterz Says:</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;">July 30th, 2012 at 2:21 am</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
@Nick McConnell: Well according to your website, your PhD is in aerospace engineering; not religious studies or anything else which would serve to qualify your statements here on the topic of Islam. So Nasser does have a point when he critiques your statements as lacking legitimate knowledge of Islam or Muslims (getting info from wikipedia for example). Furthermore, I noticed that you frequent the site of richard dawkins (or at least you thanked people you interacted with on his site). His understanding of Islam is ignorant, biased, and highly misleading. If richard “Islam is an unmitigated evil” dawkins is a source of info for you, then I’m not surprised that your comments make little to no sense (I too had never heard of Allama Parvez until your comment).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As far as labelling Islam “political,” you do understand what Zelenik and like minded people are going for here, don’t you? They have been trying for some time now to frame Islam as a “political ideology” as oppose to a religion; because then it would lose its protection under the 1st amendment (or that is their belief anyways). It is an attempt to deny American Muslims our right to practice our faith. So I find it problematic and counterproductive to label Islam in such a fashion.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Islam is indeed a complete way of life. But that doesn’t make it any less of a religion. In fact it makes it more than a mere set of rituals to be practiced one or more day a week.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I also don’t follow the comparison to communism. Which “communism” are you referring to? The egalitarian ideal of communism, which favors an equal distribution of wealth? Or the reality of communism which is (or has been) practiced in modern times in the form of authoritarian regimes? Islam does favor a more equalitarian distribution of wealth, but beyond that, I see nothing in common between the two. Unless that was just meant to be an insulting comparison?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="color: red;"><b>Submitted but still “awaiting moderation”, i.e., it, too, was censored:</b></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">Hatethehaterz,</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">Your line of reasoning leads to interesting consequences. By your reasoning, failure to have formal education in a specific topic disqualifies comments. That’s interesting. Given that even clerics describe “God” as unknown and unknowable, then all comments about “God” should be terminated. Sounds good to me.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">Re. your question, “you do understand what Zelenik and like minded people are going for here, don’t you?” Yes, I think I do, and it’s not “an attempt to deny American Muslims our right to practice our faith.” I, for one (and, I expect, other “like minded people” as well) have no interest in perversions people practice in privacy (provided that innocents aren’t molested, e.g., by indoctrinating children in religious balderdash). Instead, I see American efforts to identify Islam as an ideology as attempts to protect the American Constitution from being overthrown by a backward ideology.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">You state that you “don’t follow the comparison [of Islam] to communism”, “unless that was just meant to be an insulting comparison”. There are many similarities between the current threats to the American Constitution by Islam and prior threats from Communism, including 1) both are complete ideologies, 2) based on dogma, 3) funded by foreign governments, and 4) that seek to replace our Constitution with their ideologies. Another similarity will be: failure.</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;">Sir David ( Illuminati membership number 5:32) Warning Contains Irony Says:</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;">July 30th, 2012 at 5:57 am</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Nick McConnel I had a look at your website and came across this “Actually, when clerics controlled some society (and still control many Islamic societies).”</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Would you care to list these many Islamic societies?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
You seem to know or have you been mining wiki again lots about philosophy but I am not sure how much you know about Islam. Have you read the Quran?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
You also wrote “ That’s one way that “truth” and terror can be intertwined, described brilliantly by George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair, 1903–1950) in his 1949 book entitled 1984, e.g., If all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed… then the lie passed into history and became truth.”</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The trouble is you have seem to accepted the truth of Ms Zelenik. Read the lessons of history ,read what happened to the Jews 1930′s and 40′s europe. Then think about what is happening to muslims now.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What is the lie and what is the truth?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I am not a muslim I just believe that people should be allowed to believe what they will. If rationality as you think it is to triumph it will do it by force of argument not force of lies.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
David</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="color: red;"><b>Submitted but once again the Muslim censors at <i>loonwatch</i> had their way:</b></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">So, <i>loonwatch</i> censors are busy, are they? As a result, at one of my <a href="http://meansnends.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">blogs</a> I’ll post my response to Hatethehaterz and to David’s first comment, both of which I’ve already submitted (and which sat there, awaiting moderation/censorship, for hours). At my blog, I’ll also post my response to David’s second comment, which I haven’t submitted here, yet, but I assume that it would be to no avail, at least until the censors permit the first response to him. And I suppose that the censors won’t have the courage to post this, but that’s okay, it’ll display their colors better and I’ll still post my other responses (along with this explanation) at the referenced blog, which will eventually be noticed and reflect appropriately on <i>loonwatch</i>. Of course, if the censors do have the guts to post this, then I’ll resubmit my censored responses to see what happens.</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="color: red;"><b>Response to David’s second comment (Not submitted: What’s the point?! I expect that the cowards at <i>loonwatch</i> will, once again, be too frightened to permit it to be posted.)</b></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">Well, David, my response to your first question is: It depends on what’s meant by “control”. Of course, Iran is a case of “complete control” by Islamic clerics, but even in the case of Saudi Arabia, ostensibly controlled by the King, the clerics (e.g., the religious police) obviously have a huge amount of “control”, not only over the people but even over what the King is willingly to attempt (e.g., research the trouble he got into by permitting coeducation in his new university). Then, think of Afghanistan, where neither the Taliban leaders could nor Karzai can stray far from “the Islamic party line” without clerics moving the people to react. Similarly in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Egypt (and throughout North Africa). Now, even Indonesian and Malaysian politicians are kowtowing to demands of the clerics.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">Re. your “have you been mining wiki again”, I’d suggest that you find yourself a better mentor from whom to learn internet etiquette than what’s-his-face.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">With respect to your second question (about how much I know about Islam and if I’ve read the Quran), I’ll refer you to my <a href="http://zenofzero.net/" target="_blank">book</a>. In particular, see chapters Qx25 – Qx29 (where I go through the Quran, line by line) and see chapters Yx33 – Yx35 (where I survey Islam).</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">Re. your “The trouble is you have seem to accepted the truth of Ms Zelenik”, my response is: Where the devil did you get that?! I don’t even know who she is – nor do I care to know!</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">As for your recommendation to “read the lessons of history”, have a look at my Chapters Yx1 – Yx39: those are my notes from “read[ing] the lessons of history” about “the God Lie”. And as for “what is happening to Muslims now”, in my view, what’s happening is that a dying religion (Islam) is being pumped up by petro-dollars.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">I totally agree with you that “people should be allowed to believe what they will” (besides, they’ll do it, anyway, no matter what’s allowed!), but I’m not so sanguine as you apparently are about the efficacy of rationality: witness the God Lie, which is irrational emotionalism in its extreme. As Goethe said: “Feeling is all.”</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">That’s why I suggested (in Chapter X27) that, to eliminate the God Lie, perhaps the best way is to stimulate people to experience the feeling of shame for having adopted such “patently infantile ideas” as the existence of any god. When progress is made with that undertaking (emotionally), then maybe additional progress can be made “rationally” (or, more explicitly, by getting people to practice the scientific method in their daily lives, thereby to hold their beliefs only as strongly relevant evidence warrants).</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In sum, what a bunch of cowards such Muslim censors are! I’ve now shown examples in four recent posts. What, I wonder, are they afraid of:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
• New ideas? </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
• That some of their impressionable readers will be “led astray” by the new ideas? </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
• That they’ll lose their Middle Eastern sponsorship money if they permit ideas at their websites that conflict with the “party line”? </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
• That if they don’t show their support for Islam, then Muslim killers will turn on them?</blockquote>
<div>
But of bigger concern to me is the question: Why aren’t our elected leaders investigating such organizations as <i>loonwatch </i>that so forcefully and deceitfully promote Islam?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Islam isn’t just a religion; it’s a <a href="http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11099" target="_blank">totalitarian ideology</a> that runs on <a href="http://islamsfatalflaw.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">fear</a>, fear that’s now greased by foreign pertro-dollars. Devout Muslims don’t tolerate criticism, doubts, or questions: Muslim killers ensure conformity by instilling fear (mostly, among fellow Muslims). Islam doesn’t respect individualism; like the Borg, its mantra is: “<span style="color: purple;">Resistance if futile; you will be assimilated.</span>” </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As a totalitarian ideology, Islam is similar to Nazism and Communism. It’s also called “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamofascism" target="_blank">Islamofascism</a>”, a term described by Christopher Hitchens as <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2007/10/defending_islamofascism.html" target="_blank">follows</a>:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: blue;">Both movements [Islam and fascism] are based on a cult of murderous violence that exalts death and destruction and despises the life of the mind. (“Death to the intellect! Long live death!” as Gen. Francisco Franco’s sidekick Gonzalo Queipo de Llano so pithily phrased it.) Both are hostile to modernity (except when it comes to the pursuit of weapons), and both are bitterly nostalgic for past empires and lost glories. Both are obsessed with real and imagined “humiliations” and thirsty for revenge. Both are chronically infected with the toxin of anti-Jewish paranoia (interestingly, also, with its milder cousin, anti-Freemason paranoia). Both are inclined to leader worship and to the exclusive stress on the power of one great book. Both have a strong commitment to sexual repression – especially to the repression of any sexual “deviance” – and to its counterparts the subordination of the female and contempt for the feminine. Both despise art and literature as symptoms of degeneracy and decadence; both burn books and destroy museums and treasures.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: blue;">There isn’t a perfect congruence. Historically, fascism laid great emphasis on glorifying the nation-state and the corporate structure. There isn’t much of a corporate structure in the Muslim world, where the conditions often approximate more nearly to feudalism than capitalism, but Bin Laden’s own business conglomerate is, among other things, a rogue multinational corporation with some links to finance-capital. As to the nation-state, al-Qaida’s demand is that countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia be dissolved into one great revived caliphate, but doesn’t this have points of resemblance with the mad scheme of a “Greater Germany” or with Mussolini’s fantasy of a revived Roman empire?</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: blue;">Technically, no form of Islam preaches racial superiority or proposes a master race. But in practice, Islamic fanatics operate a fascistic concept of the “pure” and the “exclusive” over the unclean and the kufar or profane. In the propaganda against Hinduism and India, for example, there can be seen something very like bigotry. In the attitude to Jews, it is clear that an inferior or unclean race is being talked about (which is why many Muslim extremists like the grand mufti of Jerusalem gravitated to Hitler’s side). In the attempted destruction of the Hazara people of Afghanistan, who are ethnically Persian as well as religiously Shiite, there was also a strong suggestion of “cleansing.” And, of course, Bin Laden has threatened force against U.N. peacekeepers who might dare interrupt the race-murder campaign against African Muslims that is being carried out by his pious Sudanese friends in Darfur.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: blue;">This makes it permissible, it seems to me, to mention the two phenomena in the same breath and to suggest that they constitute comparable threats to civilization and civilized values. There is one final point of comparison, one that is in some ways encouraging. Both these totalitarian systems of thought evidently suffer from a death wish. It is surely not an accident that both of them stress suicidal tactics and sacrificial ends, just as both of them would obviously rather see the destruction of their own societies than any compromise with infidels or any dilution of the joys of absolute doctrinal orthodoxy. Thus, while we have a duty to oppose and destroy these and any similar totalitarian movements, we can also be fairly sure that they will play an unconscious part in arranging for their own destruction, as well.</span></blockquote>
<div>
Nothing that an “outsider” (such as Hitchens) could write about Islam, however, would be as damning as what has been written by insiders. Some <a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/X13_EXuding_EXtremism.pdf" target="_blank">examples</a> follow.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
• As <a href="http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war" target="_blank">written</a> more than 600 years ago by the Muslim historian and philosopher Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406): </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: purple;">In the Muslim community, jihad is a religious duty because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the jihad was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense. But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.</span></blockquote>
<div>
• Consistent with the above-described historically-verifiable Muslim mission is the recent (14 August 2007) statement by the current President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: purple;">There is no truth on earth but monotheism and following tenets of Islam, and there is no way for salvation of mankind but rule of Islam over mankind.</span></blockquote>
<div>
• Another recent example is the following excerpt from a 2007 <a href="http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP155307" target="_blank">speech</a> by the acting speaker of the Palestinian Legislative council, Ahmad Bahr:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: purple;">“You will be victorious” on the face of this planet. You are the masters of the world on the face of this planet. Yes, [the Koran says that] “you will be victorious”, but only “if you are believers”. Allah willing, “you will be victorious”, while America and Israel will be annihilated, Allah willing. I guarantee you that the power of belief and faith is greater than the power of America and Israel. They are cowards, as is said in the Book of Allah: “You shall find them the people most eager to protect their lives.” They are cowards, who are eager for life, while we are eager for death for the sake of Allah. That is why America’s nose was rubbed in the mud in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Somalia, and everywhere… Oh Allah, vanquish the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, vanquish the Americans and their supporters. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them all, down to the very last one…</span></blockquote>
<div>
But more to the current point about an expanding Muslim menace in America, the following examples are illustrative.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
• In the first example below are <a href="http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=19439" target="_blank">statements</a> made by senior members of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (<a href="http://www.anti-cair-net.org/" target="_blank">CAIR</a>):</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: purple;">CAIR chairman Omar M. Ahmad… in July 1998 told a crowd of California Muslims, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.” In a similar vein, CAIR board member Imam Siraj Wahaj calls for replacing the American government with a caliphate, and warns that America will crumble unless it “accepts the Islamic agenda”.</span></blockquote>
<div>
Co-Founder and CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad added (consistent with Muslim claims of superiority):</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: purple;">Address people according to their minds. When I speak with the American,<br />I speak with someone who doesn’t know anything. </span></blockquote>
<div>
• The second example is from a policy document written by a member of (and for) the Muslim Brotherhood in America. The entire document was entered as evidence by the U.S. in the 2008 trial against the Holy Land Foundation (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Land_Foundation_for_Relief_and_Development#2007_trial" target="_blank">HLF</a>). As stated in the referenced Wikipedia article:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: blue;">The memorandum was written in 1991 by Mohamed Akram, a senior Hamas leader in the U.S., a member of the Board of Directors for the Muslim Brotherhood in North America (also known as the Ikhwan) and one of many unindicted coconspirators in the HLF trial.</span></blockquote>
<div>
Pertinent paragraphs of the <a href="http://www.investigativeproject.org/document/id/20" target="_blank">document</a> (Note: the English translation starts on hand-written page 15) include the following:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: purple;">In order for Islam and its Movement to become “a part of the homeland” in which it lives, “stable” in its land, “rooted” in the spirits and minds of its people, “enabled” in the live [sic] of its society and has firmly-established “organizations” on which the Islamic structure is built and with which the testimony of civilization is achieved, the Movement must plan and struggle to obtain “the keys” and the tools of this process in carry [sic] out this grand mission as a “Civilization Jihadist” responsibility which lies on the shoulders of Muslims and – on top of them – the Muslim Brotherhood in this country.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: purple;">The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the word means. The Ikhwan [members of the Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes…</span></blockquote>
<div>
To “<span style="color: blue;">oppose and destroy these and any similar totalitarian movements</span>”, active in “<span style="color: purple;">eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions</span>”, a sensible first step would seem to be for our elected leaders to investigate them, find out who’s funding them, determine if any laws are being broken, and if necessary, recommend new laws to constrain such crazies. Questions that I’d like answered include:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
• Who funds <i>loonwatch</i>?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
• Is it <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/19/1056337/-How-and-Why-Loonwatch-com-is-a-Terrorist-Spin-Control-Network" target="_blank">correct</a> that <i>loonwatch</i> is a front for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
• Who funds CAIR?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
• Who funds the Muslim Brotherhood in North America?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
• Who has funded all the new Muslim indoctrination centers (also known as ‘mosques’)?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
With respect to the final question listed above, readers may find interesting a CAIR representative’s <a href="http://www.islamicpluralism.org/150/cair-and-that-80-percent" target="_blank">response</a> to the assessment by Shaikh Hisham Kabbani (a Sufi “spiritual figure” associated with the Islamic Supreme Council of America) that 80 percent of the Sunni mosques in America are controlled by the radical, extremist Wahhabi sect of Saudi Arabia. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And if investigations determine what I expect is occurring (i.e., that Middle Eastern petro-dollars are funding Muslim attempts to replace our Constitution with Sharia Law, so Muslim leaders can rule America), if appropriate political and policing actions are not taken by our government, and if you don’t want to become assimilated by the Islamic Borg, then an obvious next step is to replace our elected officials with those whose oaths means something when they swear to “support and defend the Constitution” or to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States”. And if that fails, too, then subsequent steps are also obvious: follow the footsteps of America’s founders.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Postscript:</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Subsequently at <i>loonwatch</i>, others have directed comments to me, but once again, <i>loonwatch</i> (CAIR?) censors won’t let me respond. So, below I’ll first quote comments/questions posted by “approved” people and then present my responses – if censorship at <i>loonwatch</i> were eliminated.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;">moosern Says:</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;">July 30th, 2012 at 1:44 pm</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
@Nick, Where in Christian doctrine does it call for a separation of church and state? The establishment cause in our Constitution is there for the very reason that throughout European history the blending of Church and State was destructive. Our founding fathers were very much aware of this, having seen and known about centuries of warfare in Europe which had monarchs often invoking religion as a means to rally their troops and fill the coffers of themselves and the clergy. The influence of the clergy in Europe up until the 20th century led to corruption of both church and state (very similar to bank and state today). Nick, actually research the limits placed on rulers under Islamic law. The political aspect of Islam is limiting on the state. Religious minorities are not allowed to be persecuted, are allowed to worship, are allowed to manage their own affairs, pay less in taxes than Muslims, are exempt from military duty, and don’t have to follow sharia law.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As of 2000 75 nations that have state religions 29 are Muslim, 40 are Christian 4 are Buddhist 1 Hindu and 1 Jewish. That means Christianity is the state religion of over half of the nations with state religions, those numbers don’t include the many countries, mainly in Europe, that have official religions meaning that the state has to approve religions before they can either be active or receive the benefits that the official religions enjoy. Caesarropapism only exists in Christianity today, the Pope being the head of state of The Vatican and the head of the Roman Catholic Church and Queen Elizabeth being the head of state of the countries of the British Commonwealth and the head of the Church of England. Iran is close to having this, but the Supreme leader of Iran is not the head of Shia Islam.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Yes, there is influence of clergy on politics in Islamic countries. There is also influence of clerics in Christian countries, Buddhist countries, Hindu countries, The Jewish country and any country where religion isn’t outright banned. Just look at the influence the extremist Christians are attempting to lever in the US at present.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="color: red;"><b>My response would probably be something similar to the following, if <i>loonwatch</i> censorship were “deactivated”. </b></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">Moosern</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">With respect to your first question: as far as I know, there’s no “Christian doctrine” that calls for a separation of church and state. I didn’t suggest that there was. I suggested only what many others have suggested, namely, that support for separation of church and state can be found in the New Testament, e.g., at <i>Mark 12,</i> 17:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: red;">“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”</span></blockquote>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">And yes, I agree with you that it was an important innovation of “our founding fathers” to promote separation of church and state, a separation that’s still resented by many Christians.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">Your recommendation that I “research the limits placed on rulers under Islamic law” is challenging, but it seems rather pointless, since ~1400 years of experiences have shown that Muslim rulers can relatively easily ignore any such limitations. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">Further, I think the fact that Muslim leaders have been able to ignore any such limitations reveals major failures of Muhammad as a political leader. Thus, and unlike Jefferson, Madison, et al., Muhammad incorporated neither the rights of people to choose (and to reject) leaders nor “checks and balances” within the governmental system, able to constrain excesses.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">As for your claim that in some (ideal?) Muslim state: “Religious minorities are not allowed to be persecuted, are allowed to worship, are allowed to manage their own affairs, pay less in taxes than Muslims, are exempt from military duty, and don’t have to follow sharia law”, I’ll respond only: doesn’t it show you how inadequate Muhammad was as a political leader, when his “ideal” has not only never been realized but also: the antithesis of his ideal (persecution of minorities, denying them basic human rights, confiscation of their property, brutal “dhimmitude”, enslavement, etc.) has been the norm for essentially all “Islamic” countries?</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">And yes, I agree that clerics attempt to influence politics in all countries. For the past 10 years, by writing my book, I’ve been doing what I can to stop them.</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;">Octane Says: </span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;">July 31st, 2012 at 6:21 pm</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
{<span style="color: purple;">Octane Says: </span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: purple;">July 31st, 2012 at 8:38 pm</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Cripes I keep forgetting to put the @ sign. My apologies. The above [now, below] post directed at Nick.}</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Well the initial implication of this discussion is that Islam is not a religion. This notion is then fortified by an argument that because Islam is all encompassing it cannot constitute a religion.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
My point here is that all religions are systems and are all encompassing whether or not you choose to observe those rules/systems is a personal choice. But that certainly does not negate those systems from existing.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Your initial argument in which you were responding to Steve stated that “but there are features of Islam that distinguish it from “approved” political activities in Christianity.” But you haven’t formally stated what those “approved” political activities are. Really no inference is needed as to what is meant here based upon the article. Which Im sure you know as the argument you are putting forth is that Islam is a political ideology.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Again to reiterate Im pointing out that it isn’t and if you hold Christianity to the same yardstick it would be considered the same or any other religion for that matter.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
While you do put forth an argument stating that there is separation of church and state. Based upon the aforementioned biblical passage. There are many others that dictate common decorum of social behaviour, political behaviour and economic behaviour in the Bible (the 10 commandments come to mind). Now we can debate the merits of the interpretation of the passage you put forward to be quite honest I think that passage does not insinuate anything at all about separation of church and state and if it did then it clearly contradicts many other passages depicting how a society should be run.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So if you accept that Christianity is a system then it is in fact not a religion but a cleverly guised ideology being hewn into manifest political ideology as tool for whoever wields it most effectively. Again Im sure you have clearly seen this in American politics where faith Christian faith is professed and used as a tool to govern the masses and sway their vote to be under Christian rule. Why? Because they do not want non-Christian or anti-Christian laws in place. i.e. Gay marriage, abortion, etc etc. You get the idea. So really Christianity is coming up more as a political mores than simply a religious one.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
While to be sure you are stating that there have been walls erected. Those walls that separate religion from politics is more like a fence. It is porous and religion has infiltrated it perfectly. In fact if that was the case why would there be such a need for politicians to show how religious they are? Major politicians having a particular Christian minister praying for them, consulting them showing how “Christian they are”. So what you are saying is actually not correct. In fact I do remember Pat Robertson praying for GW Bush quite a bit. And the Christian right has had quite the impact on politics. Im not sure how you can argue otherwise when we can all see it clearly. =/</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
With respect to your statement of secularism and you stating that a Muslim country has yet to establish that. I give you Turkey. Muslim country. Secular.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As per the list or the criteria. There are basic tenants of what constitutes a religion. The fact is just because a few political hacks are trying to convince the world that Islam is not a religion is frankly ludicrous. While you have stated you are a PhD, I have to ask you if your leading institutions Ivy Leagues, Europe with its unbiased secular based government and institutions and respected scholars in the field of religion accept that Islam is a religion. Then really how is the word of a politician not trained nor vetted in the field of religion able to state with confidence that Islam is not a religion. In fact one has to wonder how anyone can even latch on to this idea is beyond me. The poster above gave a quick rundown of what constitutes a religion and we have it above. Islam fits the bill.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That’s my two cents.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="color: red;"><b>My response would probably be something similar to the following, if the <i>loonwatch</i> censors weren’t so fearful.</b></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">Octane,</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">With respect to your “two cents”, I’m glad that you didn’t have a nickel!</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">Re. your “Islam is not a religion”, I don’t know who has (foolishly) made that statement. I expect I wrote, “Islam is not JUST a religion”, which is a different idea.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">Re. your “But you haven’t formally stated what those “approved” political activities are”, what I was referring to is that, in the U.S., clerics can’t preach politics from their pulpits – or their organizations will lose their tax exempt status.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">Yet, in general, I agree with your indictment of Christian influences on U.S. politics. I’ve been fighting it for years, e.g., see <a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/X13_EXuding_EXtremism.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">You state:</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">“With respect to your statement of secularism and you stating that a Muslim country has yet to establish that. I give you Turkey. Muslim country. Secular.”</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">You’ve misquoted me. I stated: “Unfortunately, though, such ‘secularism’ has yet to be established in most Muslim countries.”</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">Re. your final paragraph, again it seems you are ignoring the “just” in the statement “Islam is not JUST a religion.” I assure you that I agree that Islam is a religion, in the sense that, similar to cases in Judaism, Christianity, etc., adherents claim (without a single shred of evidence to support their claim) that some giant magic-man-in-the-sky (“God”) made the universe, is still in control, demands obedience, and respective (con artist) clerics are his spokesmen. I also agree with:</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">• Joseph Lewis’ assessment of such nonsense:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: blue;">It is the last of the great schemes of thievery that man must legally prohibit so as to protect himself from the charlatans who prey upon the ignorance and fears of the people. The penalty for this type of extortion should be as severe as it is of other forms of dishonesty.</span></blockquote>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">• Henry Mencken, who wrote:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: blue;">God is the immemorial refuge of the incompetent, the helpless, the miserable. They find not only sanctuary in His arms but also a kind of superiority, soothing to their macerated egos: He will set them above their betters.</span> </blockquote>
<div>
<span style="color: orange;">• And especially with M.M. Mangasarian, who observed:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: blue;">Religion is the science of children; science is the religion of adults.</span></blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.zenofzero.net/">www.zenofzero.net</a></div>A. Zoroasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07473665017762017780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5388644395556254721.post-24785650922071780412012-02-15T09:11:00.004-08:002012-02-17T04:48:27.838-08:00More Menacing Moves by Moronic Muslim Murderers***** <br />
Well, once again: I wasn’t planning on posting more at this blog (or at my <a href="http://zenofzero.blogspot.com/">other blog</a>) until I finished going through my <a href="http://zenofzero.net/">book</a>, trying to “clean up the writing” (a task in which I’ve now been engaged, for more than 8 hours per day, every day, for more than a year – and it’ll probably take me another year to finish!), but recent events have compelled me to alter my plans.<br />
<br />
In particular, this post resulted from the recent arrest of Saudi citizen Hamza Kashgari (spelled Kashghari in some news reports, and variously described as a “poet”, “blogger”, “writer”, and “journalist”) on the astoundingly primitive charge of “blasphemy” (viz., “<span style="color: blue;">the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things</span>”). I felt the need to do what I could to try to protect Hamza from having his head chopped off (at the insistence of barbaric Saudi clerics). One of my actions was to submit comments on stories about Hamza carried in the English edition of the Saudi paper <i>Arab News.</i><br />
<br />
To see how my attempts to comment led to this post, below I’ve reproduced, first, one of the relevant <a href="http://arabnews.com/saudiarabia/article573459.ece">reports</a> about Hamza published by <i>Arab News.</i><br />
<blockquote style="color: magenta;"><b>Ifta wants Kashghari tried for apostasy</b><br />
<br />
By ARAB NEWS<br />
Published: Feb 10, 2012 02:59 Updated: Feb 10, 2012 02:59<br />
<br />
RIYADH: In a new development in the case of Saudi writer Hamza Kashghari, who wrote a few tweets that were considered slanderous to Almighty Allah and His Prophet (peace be upon him), the Permanent Committee for Scholarly Research and Religious Edicts (Ifta) issued a strongly worded statement in which it said mocking Allah or His Prophet is a downright sacrilegious act, kufr (infidelity) and apostasy that should no go undetected, local daily Al-Eqtisadiah reported Thursday.<br />
<br />
"Whoever dares make a mockery of Allah, the Prophet or the Holy Book undermines the religion and displays enmity toward it. It is the duty of the rulers to try such a criminal," the committee said, warning Muslims to stay away from such practices so as to avoid exasperating God.<br />
<br />
The committee issued its statement after a meeting under its chairman Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Asheikh, the Grand Mufti.<br />
<br />
The Prophet's Sunnah and Sciences, an Internet site, also strongly denounced Kashghari's blunders and urged the authorities to take stringent actions against him. "This is a sacrilegious action necessitating harsh punitive measures to deter others who might think of doing the same thing," supervisor of the website Faleh Al-Saqeer said.<br />
<br />
He expressed confidence that the rulers of this Islamic country would not allow the culprit to get off scot-free.<br />
<br />
According to local press reports, Kashghari left the country two days ago. People close to him said that he repented and regretted what he had said about Allah and His Prophet.<br />
<br />
Under Islamic Shariah law, anyone who commits sacrilegious actions that may make him or her kafir should be given three days to repent, failing which the person is to be beheaded.</blockquote>Before seeing comments on the above report, perhaps readers would like to see what it was that Hamza Kashgari wrote to excite the clerical dictatorship “Ifta” to seek his beheading. The following is from a 10 February 2012 <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/08/twitter-aflame-with-fatwa-against-saudi-writer-hamza-kashgari.html%20">report</a> in The Daily Beast:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="color: blue;">Last week, just before the anniversary of the [alleged] Prophet Muhammad’s birth, Hamza Kashgari, a 23-year-old Saudi writer in Jidda, took to his Twitter feed to reflect on the occasion.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">“On your birthday, I will say that I have loved the rebel in you, that you’ve always been a source of inspiration to me, and that I do not like the halos of divinity around you. I shall not pray for you,” he wrote in one tweet.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">“On your birthday, I find you wherever I turn. I will say that I have loved aspects of you, hated others, and could not understand many more,” he wrote in a second.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">“On your birthday, I shall not bow to you. I shall not kiss your hand. Rather, I shall shake it as equals do, and smile at you as you smile at me. I shall speak to you as a friend, no more,” he concluded in a third…</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Kashgari has since deleted his Twitter account, and he says some like-minded friends have done the same. He declined to comment on his apology and retraction but insisted his battle was still not lost. “I view my actions as part of a process toward freedom. I was demanding my right to practice the most basic human rights – freedom of expression and thought – so nothing was done in vain,” he says. “I believe I’m just a scapegoat for a larger conflict. There are a lot of people like me in Saudi Arabia who are fighting for their rights.”</span></blockquote>I trust that all sane readers understand why I would want to defend Hamza from the idiotic, damnable, power-mongering Saudi clerics, but now, to see the specific reason for this post, have a look at the following Comments that were posted in response to the report in <i>Arab News</i> that I quoted at the outset of this post. Readers might notice that I’ve attempted to segregate the comments using a color scheme; I especially would call interested readers’ attention to the comment by “Majid Lodhi” (which I’ve put in red); my own comments are those attributed to “Nick McConnell” <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="color: magenta;">SYEDAKHLAQAMJAD</span><br />
<span style="color: magenta;">Feb 10, 2012 07:07</span><br />
<span style="color: magenta;">He must be tried. The punishment should be examplary so that in future no body should dare thinking of such things.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: magenta;">SEEKER</span><br />
<span style="color: magenta;">Feb 10, 2012 07:10</span><br />
<span style="color: magenta;">The statement of Al Lajnah Ad-Daaimah Lil Iftaa should have been translated in detail since nowhere in it did they mention that he has to be beheaded. They presented the facts & it's [its] refutation based on sound proofs without any rancour................. Secondly, it's becoming a trend that to be considered a free thinker, modernist, educated one has to condemn or abuse Islaam, it's [its] Prophet & it's [its] Religious Texts. Non Muslims do it regularly but some ''Muslims'' like Salman Rushdie, Tasleema Nasreen & others do it too. ----------------------- Now, one may say, it's Freedom of Expression -------- Is it really, If one questions the number of the Jews massacred by Hitler, it's considered ignorance & arrogance of the highest order & labelled as Anti Zionism & racist. There are many more examples to this --------- One must know that there is never absolute Freedom of Expression allowed even by the so called secularists & liberalists.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: magenta;">MUSLIM</span><br />
<span style="color: magenta;">Feb 10, 2012 07:13</span><br />
<span style="color: magenta;">Allaah is the most merciful...even if he dint [didn’t?] really repent..look how he got saved!!</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">AMERICAN MUSE</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">Feb 10, 2012 13:50</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">The intolerance of the adherents of Islam to divergent views is indeed very sad and depressing of itself. But more significantly for the future of the religion in this modern era, that attitude could surely spell its rejection and decline.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">BEMUSED</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">Feb 10, 2012 13:55</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">What did he say exactly to make everyone want to kill him?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">JHK</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">Feb 10, 2012 13:55</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">"spirituality under gun-point"</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: magenta;">SKN</span><br />
<span style="color: magenta;">Feb 10, 2012 14:04</span><br />
<span style="color: magenta;">He's only 23 years old! I know what he did was wrong, but a little mercy, please!</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: magenta;">ABDUL</span><br />
<span style="color: magenta;">Feb 11, 2012 03:25</span><br />
<span style="color: magenta;">I SEE THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF NON-MUSLIMS HERE POSTING THERE [their] OPINION ON THIS TOPIC. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PERSON [people] WHO CALL THEMSELVES MUSLIM TO BE OKAY WITH WHAT THIS WRITER SAID ABOUT ISLAM. THIS WRITER DESERVE TO BE PUNISH[ed]. I HATE Kashghari.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: magenta;">MUHAMMAD SHAKER HUSSAIN</span><br />
<span style="color: magenta;">Feb 11, 2012 03:26</span><br />
<span style="color: magenta;">Kasghari irrespective of his repetance after doing the nasty thing can not be excused by any factor of his indulgence/ This kind of etheist [atheist?] have born on this planet earth earlier also. [??] It is not a new thing. Even if Kashgari excused by the royal decree he must be a focal point to the religious scholors and the related organisations as he must be having still an etheist [atheist?] tendencies. I am sure Kashgari can not avoid the punishment by any means. The Almighty God will trap him in a way that he can not escape. These kind of people should be given punishment which they should be remebered throught [through? the] rest of their lives.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">MIGUEL</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">Feb 11, 2012 13:39</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">ABDUL: "I HATE Kashghari."</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">you hate what you fear. you fear what makes you feel insecure about yourself. you are a good example of someone who is NOT a believer - just a follower.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: magenta;">UMAIR</span><br />
<span style="color: magenta;">Feb 11, 2012 13:54</span><br />
<span style="color: magenta;">I dont agree with the freedom of expression philosophy. If something hurts the feelings of a majority of people, isnt it the right thing to ban it? You follow all the other rules, traffic signals, airport security, taxes etc. Why not follow another simple rule. Dont hurt people's feelings by saying bad things about Allah and Prohet (SAWW). If physical hitting is considered wrong in every society, then why not verbal hitting (when its often proven to be more harmful). This goes for non Muslims.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: magenta;">As for Muslims, there's the punishment of living a lie to your society by blasphemy as you never were Muslim and pretended to be so. The punishment has been decreed by GOD Himself who is ultimately the owner and master of all humans.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: magenta;">A fair trial should be done and he be given every chance to explain.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">BLUESKY</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">Feb 12, 2012 00:41</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">If your feelings are so easily hurt and you're so insecure about your God, what does that say about yourself and your religion? Gad, people need to be given the freedom to find their own truth without being under threat of death. In these times, it boggles the mind there are still societies that operate under such oppression. Traffic laws and ethics have nothing to do with your personal spiritual convictions. Let's give people the freedom to find their own way without coercion.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: magenta;">MOHD ELFIE NIESHAEM JUFERI</span><br />
<span style="color: magenta;">Feb 12, 2012 21:59</span><br />
<span style="color: magenta;">I am the owner of Ibn Juferi group of websites. We are Malaysian muslims who have are drafting the anti-murtad laws. Once this is passed everyone will be tried as per Islamic shariah laws. Apostasy is dealt with the death penalty. Only this will ensure that muslims do not leave the deen of Islam, which is the only true path and convert to false religions or become Atheists.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: magenta;">Please support our group. Thank you, wassalamu ALaikum rahmatullah.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: magenta;">ZAKIR HUSSAIN</span><br />
<span style="color: magenta;">Feb 12, 2012 22:05</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: magenta;">I wonder why this so called liberal thinkers like Salman, Tasleema etc are back of [opposed to?] Islam and the Holy prophet, as they have stood the test and criticism of all times. If they are so liberal in their thinking let them debate on the subject of HOlocast and so called Armenian Massacre</span>.</span><br />
<br />
NICK MCCONNELL<br />
Feb 12, 2012 22:05<br />
As Lemuel K. Washburn wrote more than 100 years ago:<br />
"Dogma is the hand of the dead on the throat of the living."<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">FONDUE</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">Feb 13, 2012 00:05</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">Mohd Elfie: your comment is truly disgusting to the point of making me sick, people have the right to believe what they believe, and in the same way people have the right to become a muslim and thake [take?] the shahada, they also have the right to look for their spiritual path somewhere else, learn a little respect towards humanity please...</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: magenta;">CLEARSKY</span><br />
<span style="color: magenta;">Feb 13, 2012 00:55</span><br />
<span style="color: magenta;">"Let's give people the freedom to find their own way without coercion" – BLUESKY</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: magenta;">This would be true if people are not gullible and who cannot be fooled by politicians like Bush Junior. Quoting Paul Craig Roberts: "But Bush is prepared. He has taught his untutored public that “they hate us for our freedom and democracy. Gentle reader, wise up. The entire world is laughing at you” [Gullible Americans]. And guess what? After 9/11 Bush Junior took away their freedom by Patriot Act so that the Americans will not be hated for their freedom anymore!</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: magenta;">ABDUL QADIR KHAN</span><br />
<span style="color: magenta;">Feb 13, 2012 01:24</span><br />
<span style="color: magenta;">Non-Muslims and liberals stay out of this matter. Let Saudi government deal with their citizen as per rule of their country.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">MAJID LODHI</span><br />
<span style="color: red;">Feb 13, 2012 01:36</span><br />
<span style="color: red;">It is illegal in India to speak or write against MK Gandhi. It is illegal in many Western nations to deny the holocaust. It is illegal in most countries in the world to verbally abuse the head of state. It is illegal in Germany to proclaim Nazism. To this day, it is illegal in Western democracies to openly proclaim communism.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">What are all these countries trying to protect? In case of India, it is the honor of the 'Father of the Nation'. In case of holocaust, it is to honor the dead and respect their grieving families. In case of Nazism, it is to prevent the mistakes of the past and in case of Communism, it is to protect a way of life i.e. democracy.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">So if a mortal being's honor is so important that a country with a population of one billion people respects it, then what do you say about the honor of a person who is followed across the world with more than a billion followers? And more over, what do you say about the One who created this person? the One who is recognized across the face of this Earth, and is openly acknowledged by 95% of the 6 billion people of this world is their Creator?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">Surely, there is something wrong in the Western mind these days. How can you not see Atheism as a threat yet recognize communism and nazism as a threat to your way of life? You protect your children from physical harm, yet open them up to spiritual harm in the name of personal choice?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">So why can't a person idolize Hitler and adapt Nazism as a personal choice? Because its not personal or spiritual, it is an ideology which manifests into abominable actions. It resulted in the deaths of millions of people in the last century!</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">Here's what you need to know about Islam. Yes killing is the worst of crimes against humanity. However, according to Abrahamic religions, killing a person will end his/her life in this world, but taking his religion away will make him suffer for eternity. That is why atheist or anyone who opposes Islam is such a danger to the society.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">The scholars are not being dogmatic about this, neither are anywhere close to the medievel church in their punishments. They are only calling on the authorities to take appropriate action against a threat to not just the lives of the people, but their hereafter.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">By the way, the punishment is not straight-forward beheading. The person is given a chance to explain himself. Then he is educated on the matters he has erred. If he rejects the truth after it is being shown to him, then he is sentenced to death as an apostate. There is a whole process to it and there is no deadline of 3 days as mistakenly mentioned in this article. If he repents even after 20 years, his repentance is accepted. This is the Mercy of Allah.</span><br />
<br />
NICK MCCONNELL<br />
Feb 14, 2012 02:57 <br />
Majid Lodhi: Your Comment, with its many misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and mistakes, is nonetheless a declaration of war against all Humanists. So be it. At the outset, however, I should warn you: you will lose. <br />
<br />
<span style="color: magenta;">UMAIR</span><br />
<span style="color: magenta;">Feb 14, 2012 12:54</span><br />
<span style="color: magenta;">NICK: Would you like to add some weight to your statement of denial by explaining the mistakes, misundestandings and misrepresentations. MAJID: Excellent comment. JazakAllah!</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">JACK T.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">Feb 14, 2012 13:42</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">Majid Lodhi, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. None of those countries have the data [death?] penalty for saying anything.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Only God knows truly if Kashghari has offended God, and if this is the case, then God has all of eternity to impose whatever punishment is appropriate in Gods own view. No man can know how God actually feels about this, and no man has a right to impose punishment on behalf of God.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: magenta;">IBN</span><br />
<span style="color: magenta;">Feb 14, 2012 16:39</span><br />
<span style="color: magenta;">SURA-61: As-Saff (7-8)</span><br />
<span style="color: magenta;">(7) They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah will perfect His light, although the disbelievers dislike it. (8) It is He who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion, although those who associate others with Allah dislike it.</span><br />
<br />
NICK MCCONNELL<br />
Feb 14, 2012 16:57<br />
Umair: I'd be very pleased to "add some weight to [my] statement of denial [of Majid's atrocious Comment]." Most unfortunately, however, Arab News has repeatedly refused to post any comments that might upset Muslims. I'll therefore post my response at one of my blogs, which from experience I've learned that Arab News won't let me reference. I'll try this: search for "meansnends" (that's not a spelling error) or "zenofzero.net". </blockquote>So, with the final comment shown above, perhaps readers see the reason for this post, namely, to respond to the (damnable) comment by Majid Lodhi (shown, above, in red).<br />
<br />
Before doing so, however, perhaps I should illustrate my comment in the final post above that “Arab News has repeatedly refused to post any comments that might upset Muslims”. One example is the following comment (on the above story) that I repeatedly submitted – but it never appeared:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">The author of America's Declaration of Independence and its third president, Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), said: <span style="color: blue;"> "I am opposed to any form of tyranny over the mind of man."</span></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">America's leader of its revolutionary war and its first president, George Washington (1732-99), said it well:<span style="color: blue;"> "If the freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."</span></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">After escaping from slavery in America, the great statesman Frederick Douglass (1818-1895) said: <span style="color: blue;">"To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker."</span></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">A statement by Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821) seems especially relevant for today's Saudis: <span style="color: blue;">"A people which is able to say everything becomes able to do everything."</span> </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">That follows, because as Charles Bradlaugh (1833-1891) said: <span style="color: blue;"> "Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful... Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race."</span></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">Of course, all of this is "old news" to the censors of the Comments at <i>Arab News</i>, who have repeatedly demonstrated to me that they're afraid of permitting free speech.</blockquote>That done, I’ll now respond to Lodhi’s Comment, without concern about the censors at <i>Arab News</i>:<br />
<br />
************** <br />
<br />
As shown above, my earlier response to Lodhi (which managed to get past the censors at <i>Arab News</i>) contained the statement:<br />
<blockquote>Majid Lodhi: Your Comment, with its many misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and mistakes, is nonetheless a declaration of war against all Humanists. </blockquote>Below, I’ll list reasons for my assessment. To start, consider Lodhi’s first paragraph:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="color: red;">It is illegal in India to speak or write against MK Gandhi. It is illegal in many Western nations to deny the holocaust. It is illegal in most countries in the world to verbally abuse the head of state. It is illegal in Germany to proclaim Nazism. To this day, it is illegal in Western democracies to openly proclaim communism.</blockquote>Already his first paragraph contains many “misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and mistakes”. For example, I expect that most people would agree that each country has some dumb laws, but that’s a red herring, because the topic being addressed has nothing to do with legality. Instead, it concerns morality. <br />
<br />
The odor of additional red herrings in Lodhi’s first paragraph can be detected by noticing that the topic being addressed is not:<br />
<br />
• An immoral law in India dealing with Gandhi (incidentally, although I have written praise of Gandhi, I’ve also written appropriate criticism),<br />
<br />
• Immoral <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial" target="_blank">laws</a> in several European countries dealing with denial of the Holocaust or with Nazism,<br />
<br />
• Immoral laws anywhere dealing with “verbally abus[ing] the head of state” (which may be America’s favorite pastime!), or <br />
<br />
• Immoral laws anywhere dealing with Communism – although I’ll add that, in contrast to Lodhi’s claim, I know of no Western democracy in which “it is illegal… to openly proclaim communism.” It’s <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-communism#Anti-communism_in_different_countries_and_regions" target="_blank">correct</a> that several European countries do have immoral laws that criminalize the denial of “crimes against humanity… committed by totalitarian communist regimes”, and though I (and many others) consider such laws to be immoral, nonetheless, such laws are vastly different from Lodhi’s claim “it is illegal in Western democracies to openly proclaim communism.”<br />
<br />
But all the above points are more red herrings, because the topic being addressed deals with the immoral laws in most Muslim nations of killing people who criticize Islam’s “prophet”, Muhammad, or a fictitious, giant Jabberwock in the sky called “Allah”. Stated differently, what Lodhi’s pitiful argument reduces to is: “Look, Westerners have immoral laws; so, we Muslims get to have immoral laws, too.”<br />
<br />
Now I admit that, immediately, I should address both the difference between ‘legality’ and ‘morality’. In addition, I should address the differences in morality adopted by different cultures, as well as the possibility of world-wide agreement on specific moral principles. Doing so thoroughly, however, is a major undertaking – which is why (in part) I provided the reference to my book, in which I devote many chapters to exactly those topics. Here, to reduce my workload, I’ll simply paste my previously <a href="http://zenofzero.blogspot.com/2010/09/five-foundational-evils-of-islam.html" target="_blank">posted summary</a> in which I tried to explain why I consider Islam to be “evil”:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="color: purple;">My goal for this post is to try to explain what I mean by the following “five foundational evils” of Islam:<br />
<br />
1. Islam’s evil of promoting beliefs in the absence of reliable evidence,<br />
2. Islam’s evil of demanding adherence to dogmatic ignorance,<br />
3. Islam’s evils of violating human rights and advocating hate,<br />
4. Islam’s evil psychological manipulations of “true believers”, and<br />
5. Islam’s evil of waging incessant, immoral war against “unbelievers”.<br />
<br />
At the outset, I should acknowledge that the above-listed evils (or “extreme immoralities”) of Islam are immoral according to my judgment (and also, I’m sure, in the judgments of essentially all secular humanists), but not in the judgments of essentially all Muslims. In their judgments, the topics listed above aren’t “evil” but “good”, because as Ali Sina <a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/05/islam-and-the-golden-rule.html" target="_blank">summarized</a>:</blockquote><blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="color: blue;">According to Muslims it is not the Golden Rule that defines the good and bad, it is Muhammad who does it. They believe that what is good for Islam is the highest virtue and what is bad for Islam is the ultimate evil. This is the definition of good and evil in Islam.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">This is the ethos of all cults. From Asahara’s “Aum Shinrikyo” to Jim Jones’ “People’s Temple” and from Sun Myung Moon’s “Unification Church” to David Koresh’s “Davidian Branch”, the recurring theme is that the cult’s interests override human understanding of right and wrong. In order to advance the interest of the cult, which is regarded as the ultimate good, everything (including lying and even murder and assassination) is permissible. The end is deemed to be so lofty that it justifies the means. This is the same idea of fascism where the glorification of the state and the total subordination of the individual to it are enforced…</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">The first requisite to feel the pain and suffering of others is to accept that they have feelings like us and they also feel hurt the way we do. If we deny such feelings on others we do not feel any remorse in abusing them. Muhammad claimed all those who disbelieve in Allah are the worst creatures. He even said that all non-believers will end up in hell where they will be tortured for eternity. How then can Muslims treat equally those whom they believe to be worse than beasts and deserve eternal punishment?</span></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="color: purple;">Thereby, just as Emerson said about social justice (“One man’s justice is another’s injustice”), one person’s morality can be another’s immorality. Consequently, before trying to describe details about what I consider to be evils in Islam, it seems appropriate to review my meaning for ‘morality’.<br />
<br />
In my [free] on-line <a href="http://zenofzero.net/" target="_blank">book</a>… I devote many chapters to the concepts of ‘good’ and ‘evil’. Here, therefore, I’ll provide only an outline, along with references to more-complete explanations:<br />
<br />
• Rather than a “black-versus-white” or “good-versus-evil” view of morality, and rather than struggle to identify appropriate adjectives or modifying phrases (e.g., “partially good”, “somewhat evil”, etc.), it’s convenient to use a <a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/J2JusticeandMorality.pdf" target="_blank">numerical scale</a>. At places in what follows, therefore, I’ll identify moral values on a numerical scale ranging from –10 to +10, with –10 corresponding to something judged to be “extremely bad” and +10 corresponding to something judged to be “extremely good”. <br />
<br />
• As with any value, moral value has meaning only relative to some objective. For instance, if your goal is to build a sturdy house, then it would be “good” to use appropriate building materials (e.g., the use of bricks and mortar might be judged to have a moral value of +8, and use of lumber, maybe a +6), whereas building a house out of marshmallows and peanut butter, for example, would probably be judged to have a very low moral value (maybe a –7). Consequently, to discuss, evaluate and compare (and perhaps even agree on) morality, it’s first necessary to discuss and compare <a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/V_Values_&_Objectives.pdf" target="_blank">objectives</a>.<br />
<br />
• The root reason why judgments about morality are contentious (e.g., the morality of parents’ indoctrinating their children in religion) is disagreements about fundamental goals. Even a child asks “Why are we here?” – and no one knows the answer with certainty (or even if the question is <a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/P01_The_Purpose_of_Life.pdf" target="_blank">reasonable</a>). As I reviewed in earlier posts in this series, Zarathustra’s answer (that we’re here to participate in a cosmic war between good and evil) is the basis of the philosophy of both ancient Greek mystics (Pythagoras, Plato, the Stoics…) and the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam…), but the philosophy of both the ancient Greek realists (Democritus, Aristotle, Epicurus…) and most philosophers today is consistent with the fundamental idea of existentialism (Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre…): “existence before essence”. That is, in contrast to religious and metaphysical ideas that each human possesses an “immortal soul” with “eternal essence”, existentialism recognizes that humans first exist – and then we define our goals (or have them defined for us by our experiences and culture). <br />
<br />
• Given that humans are goal-driven animals (with feelings of <a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/Happiness.pdf" target="_blank">happiness</a> arising when we think that we’re making progress toward achieving our goals), it’s understandable that humans are susceptible even to sometimes-bizarre suggestions about “<a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/P01_The_Purpose_of_Life.pdf" target="_blank">the purpose of life</a>” (i.e., what our goals “should be”), e.g., to placate some god or to follow in some charismatic leader’s footsteps. Because people adopt different prime goals, they have different concepts of morality (because, again, moral values, as with any values, can be judged only relative to some goal).<br />
<br />
• People adopt thousands of goals (e.g., to build houses, to teach their children religion, to be happy, to finish a damnable writing task, etc.), but the prime goals of all humans seem to be similar. Prime goals are those goals for which all other (then, lower-priority) goals would be willingly sacrificed. Even a <a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/BoardMeeting.pdf" target="_blank">simple analysis</a> suggests the obvious result that all humans pursue the following trio of interconnected, prime goals: the survival (or even “thrival”) of themselves, their families (whatever extent they recognize to be “family”), and their other values (e.g., honesty, bravery, fidelity, liberty, etc.). Relative to those prime goals, then, we form judgments about morality, as I’ll outline and illustrate below.<br />
<br />
• Relative to our prime goal to survive (or better, thrive!), essentially all humans judge that continuing to live has high moral value (maybe a +9 or maybe even a +10, on a morality scale running from –10 to +10), but exceptions occur. Some exceptions arise from confused thought, some exceptions arise from indoctrination (e.g., religious indoctrination in the oxymoronic idea of “life after death” and the ridiculous idea that religious martyrs gain instant access to eternal paradise), but some exceptions arise because, in certain circumstances, another prime goal takes precedence (e.g., even other animals will risk their lives to save the lives of family members, especially their offspring).<br />
<br />
• Relative to our prime goal of helping our families survive (whatever extent we recognize for our family), essentially all humans judge that protecting our families has high moral value (ranging perhaps from +1 to +10 on the morality scale, depending on details of the “protection”). In this post, I won’t have need to delve into the huge number of complicated <a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/V_Values_&_Objectives.pdf" target="_blank">details</a> that arise, also, from what different people consider to be “family members”. Nonetheless, it’s relevant to mention the horrors that have resulted form considering as family only those people who belong to the same tribe, religion, or “race”, as did Ezra (writing as Moses), Muhammad, and Hitler. In wonderful contrast were Zarathustra, the Buddha, Cyrus the Great, Socrates (“I am not an Athenian, nor a Greek, but a citizen of the world”) and the resulting brotherhood sentiments of the Epicureans and Stoics, which were adopted by most Christians and all Humanists.<br />
<br />
• Relative to our prime goal of maintaining our other values, judging the morality of any act can become even more <a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/V_Values_&_Objectives.pdf" target="_blank">complicated</a>, depending on our decision about how knowledge can be gained (i.e., our <a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/Y02_Your_Premisses_&_Purposes.pdf" target="_blank">epistemology</a>) and our resulting worldview. For religious people, their worldview results in their clerics dictating values. For Humanists, i.e., those of us with a naturalistic worldview, each of us must decide on our other values by ourselves. <br />
<br />
That said, I can now explain what I mean by labeling the indicated features of Islam to be “foundational evils.” Such judgments are based on my own perspective of morality, two important features of which are the following.<br />
<br />
1. In the category of “<a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/J2JusticeandMorality.pdf" target="_blank">personal morality</a>”, I consider the highest moral value (i.e., a +10) to be to use one’s brain as best one can (which means more than just thinking: relying on data is essential), i.e., evaluate. In that respect, I generally agree with Socrates’ assessment, “There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance”, although when applied to personal morality, I would prefer a statement similar to: “There is only one good, willingness to learn, and one evil, refusal.” <br />
<br />
2. In the category of “<a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/J3InterpersonalJandM.pdf" target="_blank">interpersonal morality</a>”, I’ve found it difficult to identify a single, all-encompassing description of acts with the highest moral value (i.e., a +10). Elsewhere, I’ve discussed the wisdom reflected in parables and sayings from essentially every culture dealing with <a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/Love_within_Limits.pdf" target="_blank">love (within limits)</a> and <a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/KindnesswithKeenness.pdf" target="_blank">kindness (with keenness)</a>. And of course the reason for dealing with others compassionately is as described in ancient Hinduism as <i>karma</i> and in modern American culture as: “What goes around comes around.” For more formal statements of the highest interpersonal-morality, there is Kant’s, “Always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end”, as well as my own, “Always recognize that everyone has an equal right to claim one’s own existence.” </blockquote>With my meaning for ‘morality’ as outlined in the above, perhaps it’s clear why I labeled both the laws mentioned by Lodhi and all Muslim laws dealing with “blasphemy” to be immoral: such laws (not only curtailing freedom of speech but even murdering those who have the audacity to hold opinions different from the Muslim majority) violate the fundamental, interpersonal moral-principle that’s described with such statements as “everyone has an equal right to claim one’s own existence” or “always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end” (e.g., your goal of perpetuating your religion). <br />
<br />
So, with that attempt to explain my meaning of ‘morality’, I’ll now turn to additional “misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and mistakes” in Lodhi’s published statement, although in an attempt to be briefer, I’ll provide just a few comments after each of his additional, quoted paragraphs.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="color: red;">What are all these countries trying to protect <span style="color: black;">[with their “immoral” laws]</span>? In case of India, it is the honor of the 'Father of the Nation'. In case of holocaust, it is to honor the dead and respect their grieving families. In case of Nazism, it is to prevent the mistakes of the past and in case of Communism, it is to protect a way of life i.e. democracy.</blockquote>That may be so (subject to restrictions derived from Lodhi’s mistaken ideas about the laws), but even if it were so, it doesn’t distract from the immorality of the laws, in that they restrict freedom of speech (beyond restrictions needed to protect other humans from physical harm) and, therefore, fail to recognize that “everyone has an equal right to claim one’s own existence” or, in Kant’s version of the fundamental, interpersonal moral-principle, such laws don’t recognize that individuals are ends in themselves.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="color: red;">So if a mortal being's honor is so important that a country <span style="color: black;">[presumably, India]</span> with a population of one billion people respects it, then what do you say about the honor of a person who is followed across the world with more than a billion followers? And more over, what do you say about the One who created this person? the One who is recognized across the face of this Earth, and is openly acknowledged by 95% of the 6 billion people of this world is their Creator?</blockquote>Here, again, the essence of Lodhi’s argument is: if an immoral law is adopted in India, then why shouldn’t Muslim countries have immoral laws dealing with blasphemy? That’s as sick an argument as I’ve ever encountered, although his additional statement is a close runner-up, which I’ll rephrase this way: whereas at least 99% of all people in the world were convinced that the world is a flat plate, therefore, it was obviously moral to kill those who had the audacity to think otherwise. And if that seems to be an outrageous analogy, recall that the previous Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Ibn Baz, issued a <i>fatwa</i> declaring that anyone who disagreed with the Qur'an that the Sun orbits the Earth was an apostate (and therefore, according to immoral Muslim laws, should be murdered) – a <i>fatwa</i> of comparable enlightenment to the reported ruling against Hamza Kashgari, apparently endorsed by the current Grand Mufti.<br />
<br />
Further, I suspect it would be useless to point out to Lodhi (as I describe in detail in my <a href="http://zenofzero.net/" target="_blank">book</a>) that the “Creator” was most likely a symmetry-breaking quantum-like fluctuation in a total void, leading to inflation (or "the Big Bang"), and that the most certain knowledge that humans have been able to gain (even more certain than the knowledge that we exist, for we may all be just simulations in a humongous computer game) is that there are no gods and never were any. I suspect that it’s useless to make those points, because in his Comment, Lodhi demonstrates that he's either unwilling or unable to think about anything that conflicts with his religious delusions.<br />
<br />
Such delusions are also illustrated in his next two paragraphs:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="color: red;">Surely, there is something wrong in the Western mind these days. How can you not see Atheism as a threat yet recognize communism and nazism as a threat to your way of life? You protect your children from physical harm, yet open them up to spiritual harm in the name of personal choice?<br />
<br />
So why can't a person idolize Hitler and adapt Nazism as a personal choice? Because its not personal or spiritual, it is an ideology which manifests into abominable actions. It resulted in the deaths of millions of people in the last century!</blockquote>I won’t describe the balderdash contained in those two paragraphs just with such mild terms as “misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and mistakes”; instead, I’ll describe the author as a damnable, egotistical maniac!<br />
<br />
That is, who in Hell (or anywhere else) is Lodhi to define for me (or anyone else) what's “spiritual”?! Examples of what’s “spiritual” for me include: to hear Beethoven’s Seventh Symphony again, to discover Axel Strauss’ performance of Rodolphe Krutzer’s Violin Concerto No. 17 in G Major, to finally solve a problem in theoretical physics that confounded the knowledgeable scientific community for more than a decade, to see another beautiful sunrise, to pet a friendly horse’s soft nose, to see my daughter again, and so on. In contrast, Lodhi’s “spirituality” is apparently to continue to “believe” (without a shred of data to support his silly “belief”) that after he dies he’ll have 72 houris (viz., “white raisins”) for his perpetual enjoyment! With all respect that's due, I say to Lodhi: “Blow out your ear, you pompous ass!”<br />
<br />
And then, Lodhi enlightens us about how his fellow, maniacal Muslims will murder those who have the audacity to think for themselves.<br />
<blockquote style="color: red;">Here's what you need to know about Islam. Yes killing is the worst of crimes against humanity. However, according to Abrahamic religions, killing a person will end his/her life in this world, but taking his religion away will make him suffer for eternity. That is why atheist or anyone who opposes Islam is such a danger to the society.<br />
<br />
The scholars are not being dogmatic about this, neither are anywhere close to the medievel church in their punishments. They are only calling on the authorities to take appropriate action against a threat to not just the lives of the people, but their hereafter.<br />
<br />
By the way, the punishment is not straight-forward beheading. The person is given a chance to explain himself. Then he is educated on the matters he has erred. If he rejects the truth after it is being shown to him, then he is sentenced to death as an apostate. There is a whole process to it and there is no deadline of 3 days as mistakenly mentioned in this article. If he repents even after 20 years, his repentance is accepted. This is the Mercy of Allah.</blockquote>In summary, to all of Lodhi’s comment, including his abominable line<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="color: red;">That is why atheist or anyone who opposes Islam is such a danger to the society.</blockquote>I responded (in my Comment that managed to get past the censors at <i>Arab News</i>):<br />
<blockquote>Majid Lodhi: Your Comment, with its many misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and mistakes, is nonetheless a declaration of war against all Humanists. So be it. At the outset, however, I should warn you: you will lose. </blockquote>I added “you will lose [the war that Lodhi as well as, quite likely, the majority of Muslims and other religious fundamentalists have declared against Humanists]”, because I’m certain that, in the end, truth will prevail. As M.M. Mangasarian conveyed more than a century ago:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="color: blue;">I shall speak in a straightforward way, and shall say today what perhaps I should say tomorrow, or ten years from now – but shall say it today, because I cannot keep it back, because I have nothing better to say than the truth, or what I hold to be the truth. But why seek truths that are not pleasant? We cannot help it. No man can suppress the truth. Truth finds a crack or crevice to crop out of; it bobs up to the surface and all the volume and weight of waters cannot keep it down. Truth prevails! Life, death, truth – behold, these three no power can keep back.<br />
<br />
And since we are doomed to know the truth, let us cultivate a love for it. It is of no avail to cry over lost illusions, to long for vanished dreams, or to call to the departing gods to come back. It may be pleasant to play with toys and dolls all our life, but evidently we are not meant to remain children always. The time comes when we must put away childish things and obey the summons of truth, stern and high.<br />
<br />
A people who fear the truth can never be a free people. If what I will say is the truth, do you know of any good reason why I should not say it? And if for prudential reasons I should sometimes hold back the truth, how would you know when I am telling what I believe to be the truth, and when I am holding it back for reasons of policy?<br />
<br />
The truth, however unwelcome, is not injurious; it is error which raises false hopes, which destroys, degrades and pollutes, and which, sooner or later, must be abandoned…<br />
<br />
When we subject what are called “religious truths” to the same tests by which we determine scientific or historical truths, we discover that they are not truths at all; they are only opinions. Any statement which snaps under the strain of reason is unworthy of credence.<br />
<br />
But it is claimed that “religious truth” is discovered by intuition and not by investigation. The believer, it is claimed, feels in his own soul – he has the witness of the spirit that [for example] the Bible is infallible and that Jesus is the Savior of man. The Christian does not have to look into the arguments for or against his religion, it is said, before he makes up his mind; he knows by an inward assurance; he has proved it to his own deeper-most being that Jesus is real and that he is the only Savior.<br />
<br />
But what is that but another kind of argument? The argument is quite inadequate to inspire assurance, as you will presently see, but it is an argument nevertheless. To say that we must believe and not reason is a kind of reasoning.<br />
<br />
This device of reasoning against reasoning is resorted to by people who have been compelled by modern thought to give up, one after another, the strongholds of their position. They run under shelter of what they call faith, or the “inward witness of the spirit”, or the intuitive argument, hoping thereby to escape the enemy’s fire, if I may use so objectionable a phrase. What is called faith, then, or an intuitive spiritual assurance, is a species of reasoning; let its worth be tested honestly.<br />
<br />
In the first place, faith or the intuitive argument would prove too much. If Jesus is real, notwithstanding that there is no reliable historical data to warrant the belief, because the believer feels in his own soul that He is real and divine, I answer that the same mode of reasoning – and let us not forget, it is a kind of reasoning – would prove Muhammad a divine savior, and the wooden idol of the savage a god. The African Bushman trembles before an image, because he feels in his own soul that the thing is real. Does that make it real? The Muslim cries unto Muhammad, because he believes in his innermost heart that Muhammad is near and can hear him. He will risk his life on that assurance. To quote to him history and science, to prove that Muhammad is dead and unable to save, would be of no avail, for he has the witness of the spirit in him, an intuitive assurance, that the great prophet sits on the right hand of Allah. An argument which proves too much, proves nothing…<br />
<br />
There is in man a faculty for fiction. Before history was born, there was myth; before men could think, they dreamed. It was with the human race in its infancy as it is with the child. The child’s imagination is more active than its reason. It is easier for it to fancy even than to see. It thinks less than it guesses. This wild flight of fancy is checked only by experience. It is reflection which introduces a bit into the mouth of imagination, curbing its pace and subduing its restless spirit. It is, then, as we grow older, and, if I may use the word, riper, that we learn to distinguish between fact and fiction, between history and myth.<br />
<br />
In childhood we need play-things, and the more fantastic and bizarre they are, the better we are pleased with them. We dream, for instance, of castles in the air – gorgeous and clothed with the azure hue of the skies. We fill the space about and over us with spirits, fairies, gods, and other invisible and airy beings. We covet the rainbow. We reach out for the moon. Our feet do not really begin to touch the firm ground until we have reached the years of discretion.<br />
<br />
I know there are those who wish they could always remain children – living in dreamland. But even if this were desirable, it is not possible. Evolution is our destiny; of what use is it, then, to take up arms against destiny?<br />
<br />
Let it be borne in mind that all the religions of the world were born in the childhood of the race. Science was not born until man had matured. There is in this thought a world of meaning.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><i>Children make religions.</i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i>Grown up people create science.</i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i>The cradle is the womb of all the fairies and faiths of mankind.</i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i>The school is the birthplace of science.</i></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
That Lodhi's Comment contains misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and mistakes undoubtedly reflects his attempts to maintain his childish delusions. To him (and to all who were indoctrinated in religious balderdash, be they Hindus, Jews, Christians, Muslims, or whatever their parents' perversion of reality) I'd convey a simple message: it's time to put away childish things. As I've <a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/IiIndoctrinationinIgnorance.pdf" target="_blank">elsewhere</a> summarized Mangasarian's assessment:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: purple;">Religion is the science of children; science is the religion of adults.</span></div><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: purple;"><a href="http://www.zenofzero.net/">www.zenofzero.net</a> </span></div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><blockquote class="tr_bq"><blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="color: purple;"> </span></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></div>A. Zoroasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07473665017762017780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5388644395556254721.post-2329268810993392102011-03-27T04:22:00.000-07:002011-03-29T01:42:40.842-07:00More Muslim Mendacity••••<br />
Well, for reasons mentioned at the end of the last post at my <a href="http://zenofzero.blogspot.com/">other blog</a>, I wasn’t planning on posting at this blog anytime soon, but another case of Muslim mendacity has moved me. I mentioned two other cases in earlier posts in this blog, <a href="http://meansnends.blogspot.com/2010/11/some-experiences-at-islamic-board-forum.html">here</a> and <a href="http://meansnends.blogspot.com/2010/12/all-clerics-are-terrorists.html">here</a>. The background for the present case is the following.<br />
<br />
Earlier this week, I read a long <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/magazine/mag-20Salafis-t.html?_r=1">article</a> in the 20 March 2011 magazine section of <i>The New York Times</i> about the American Muslim <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ammaar_Yasir_Qadhi">Yasir Qadhi</a>. Qadhi was educated in Saudi Arabia and America, is now working on his doctorate in Islamic studies at Yale University, teaches in the Religious Studies Department of Rhodes College in Memphis, and is Dean of Academic Affairs of the AlMaghrib Institute, where he claims he has taught his interpretations of “Orthodox” (Sunni) Islam to “close to 16,000 [American] students.”<br />
<br />
Somewhat intrigued about Qadhi, I went to his website (referenced in the Times article), read a fair amount, and eventually at his website, found his <a href="http://muslimmatters.org/2011/03/21/my-reflections-on-the-new-york-times-article/">post</a> entitled “Reflection on the New York Times Article”. As you can determine if you look about 1/3 the way down through the Comment Section for Qadhi’s post (specifically, at the “time stamp” of “March 22 at 9:39 AM”), I added the following comment:<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Nick McConnell<br />
March 22, 2011 • 9:39 AM</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Yasir: Of course I’m not a Muslim, and although I, too, don’t like labels, yet when pushed, I usually say I’m a Humanist or a scientific humanist. I found the referenced NYT article interesting and followed its links to your website, where I’ve been reading for the past many hours.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">What I find stunning is this: you are obviously an intelligent person and very competent at conveying your ideas, but what astounding errors you have made! Yet, what you are displaying (and living!) certainly isn’t unique. I have given several examples at my website in a <a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/R_Reason_versus_Reality.pdf">chapter</a> entitled “Reason vs. Reality”, here I’ll just mention two examples.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">1. It can be argued that Aristotle was the most brilliant person who ever lived, but surely we can at least agree that he was brilliant. Yet, if you’ll read his (logical) argument “justifying” slavery, surely you’ll also agree that his conclusion was totally wrong.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">2. Many people argue that Augustine was brilliant; I would at least agree (and expect that you, too, would agree) that he had an enormous influence on a huge number of people. But again, if you’ll read his (logical) argument “justifying” slavery, surely you’ll also agree that his conclusion was totally wrong.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">For both, their arguments were logically sound (although Aristotle’s argument by analogy weakened his argument); their errors were in their premises. I find your arguments to be similarly logically sound (as are most arguments I’ve read by various Muslims “scholars”), but your (and their) conclusions are astoundingly weak, again because of premises.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">In particular, your basic premise (similar to Aristotle’s and Augustine’s) is that a creator god exists. Do you know nothing about the past few hundred years of scientific advances? The idea that some god created the universe and people has been totally debunked: the universe almost certainly was initiated by <a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/Awareness.pdf">a symmetry-breaking quantum-like fluctuation in a total void</a>, and after the Big Bang, the formation of elementary particles, stars, etc., auto-catalytic chemical reactions led to life, which eventually evolved to humans. If you will study science, you’ll realize that your premises should be abandoned, and with your brilliant mind, I hope you’ll then join us Humanists in trying to reduce violence and bring more peace and prosperity to all humans.</span></blockquote>Unsurprisingly, Yasir (Qadhi) didn’t respond, but as readers can check by reading the first set of responses that followed, my comment obviously stimulated a number of his followers. I responded to them through most of the rest of the morning (see the comments through to the one from “Anum” on March 22 at 2:05 PM), but then, the moderator blocked my response to Anum! Finally, after getting through to Anum <i>via</i> the second set of comments (which I’ll get to, shortly), the moderator let me respond to Anum (see my response at March 23 at 4:56 AM). The punch-counterpunch continued – although another block by the moderator occurred (cf. my comments on March 22 at 6:31 PM and then on March 23 at 6:26 AM). Then, however, the moderator “called the match”, by closing all comments!<br />
<br />
To verify that last statement, you need to scroll to near the end of the comments, to the post by Siraaj (on March 23 at 2:12 PM), where Siraaj states not only that, “I’m locking discussion on this thread”, but adds:<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">PS – discussion not directly relevant to the discussion at hand will likely be removed soon, so don’t be surprised posts on handshaking, humanism, and other unrelated tangents are removed. </span></blockquote>For the reader’s information, I should add that mine were the only comments dealing with “humanism”; therefore, to me, the moderator’s statement really meant: “Your comments will likely be removed.”<br />
<br />
Well, okay, it’s their website, they can post what they want. Such censorship, however, isn’t consistent with Qadhi’s stated desire (contained in his “closing comments” at the end of the Comments Section, posted on March 25 at 9:33 AM):<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">I believe that we need to allow people to express their opinions.</span></blockquote>Anyway, I decided to proceed with the current post, not to call attention to Muslims who are afraid of opposing ideas, but to mention the mendacity of (as a minimum) the Muslim moderator(s) at MuslimMatters.org.<br />
<br />
Thus, returning to the earlier comments, notice that, after my response on March 23 at 6:26 AM and after the comments were allegedly closed by Siraaj on the same day (March 23 at 2:12 PM), yet “out of the blue”, the following comment appeared, 3 (three!) days later!<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">Saad</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">March 26, 2011 • 3:15 AM</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">Peace Nick,</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">As a physicist myself at Cornell (yes, we produced both Hans Bethe and Feynman), I find that your arguments lack merit.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">Before the development of QM, most physicists were at least deists. That is because pre-QM physics was heavily built on two main paradigms namely those of determinism and causality. After QM, only causality has remained. Incidentally, these physicists believed that God did not interfere with the universe because everything was pre-determined. Nowadays, they don’t know how to account for a non-determinist, causal universe.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">The funny thing abt having a causal universe is that it necessarily implies some element of noncausality. Either there is some noncausal interference, read the universe pops out of nothing, or the universe has to exist forever. It really is that simple. Btw, noncausal means outside of the boundary of time and space.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">Either way, you run into a problem of infinites. Either the universe exists for infinite or you have a creator who is infinite, etc. Your choice. </span></blockquote>Talk about dirty dealings! I expect that Muslims at MuslimMatters.org went searching for “an expert”, to try to find someone to deal me a “knockout punch”. But be that as it may be, ‘lo and behold, with the above post-closure addition, the Comment Section was open again (complete with “Reply Buttons”)! So, I composed the following response to Saad:<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Hello, Saad, and peace to you – and to everyone!</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Yes, I know Cornell well: I got my Ph.D. there, more than 40 years ago, met both Bethe and Feynman, and studied under other famous physicists, including Tom Gold, Ed Salpeter, Philip Morrison, and Dick Sibly – although, it was such a long time ago, I might have forgotten how to spell Dick's surname…</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;"> </span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">As for your "finding" that my "arguments lack merit", I trust that you won't be surprised that I come to a similar conclusion about the arguments that you present in your comment! Possibly the cause is simply the (understandable) brevity of your note, but possibly it's because you haven't given my arguments sufficient consideration. For example, I wonder if you at least glanced at the <a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/Awareness.pdf">first chapter</a> and the chapters in <a href="http://zenofzero.net/Part_4.html">Part 4</a> of my <a href="http://zenofzero.net/">book</a>, especially the <a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/U_Ubiquitous_Uncertainties.pdf">chapter</a> dealing with uncertainties.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">With respect to your first assessment, that "before the development of QM, most physicists were at least deists", several responses seem appropriate: 1) I made a similar comment in one of my earlier responses, and included the names of theists such as Newton, Maxwell, and Planck, 2) Let's not fall into the logical fallacy <i>(argumentum ad populum)</i> of judging the "truth" of a statement by how many people accept it, since by that criterion, it would have been "true" that the Earth was flat, and 3) Also, let's not fall into the logical fallacy of appealing to inappropriate authorities <i>(argumentum ad verecundiam)</i>, since as I already mentioned in an earlier comment, most physicists don't spend time considering "the god idea".</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Turning now to your more relevant points, you first state: "That [to wit: that most pre-QM physicists were at least deists] is because pre-QM physics was heavily built on two main paradigms, namely, those of determinism and causality." Of course I agree with your statement that pre-QM was based on those two paradigms, and I agree with your further point that one of their reasons for rejecting the idea of an anthropomorphic god was their commitment to causality. Einstein said it well in his book <i>The World As I See It:</i></span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #0b5394;">We thus arrive at a conception of the relation of science to religion very different from the usual one. When one views the matter historically one is inclined to look upon science and religion as irreconcilable antagonists, and for a very obvious reason. The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events – that is, if he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it goes through. Hence science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear and punishment and hope of reward after death.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">But now, turning to your next point, "After QM, only causality has remained", I find that statement to be doubly troubling.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">On the one hand, although the implication that QM has eliminated determinism is of course correct in the sense that only probabilities can be predicted, yet consistent with Popper's idea (which goes all the way back to Xenophanes and which is the basis of all science) that, in open systems, only the probability that some claim is true can be ascertained, then one could easily argue that determinism is still "alive and well" – it's just that we now have a better idea of what "determinism" means! In that regard, and as a challenge to Feynman's familiar line "if you think you understand QM, you don't understand QM", I'd encourage you to Google John Cramer's "Transactional Interpretation" of QM: generalizing the Feynman-Wheeler description of EM, it appears that he's resolved quantum entanglement by keeping the advanced-wave solution to the Schrödinger equation – and by assuming it deterministically describes what simultaneously evolves in the negative-energy background of space, where time runs in the opposite direction!</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;"> </span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">And on the other hand, your explicit claim that "only causality has remained" can be challenged, even for classical systems. That is, even for most macroscopic nonlinear systems (i.e., most systems!), causality has been lost. I have heard Ilya Prigogine argue this point well – and talked to him about it. As you no doubt know, it's based on Ed Lorenz's discovery that uncertainties in initial conditions (no matter how small – even if they are only quantum mechanical!) will overwhelmingly dominate a nonlinear system's evolution: a butterfly in Brazil can indeed cause a tornado in Texas. Thus, you should reconsider your claim that "causality has remained."</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;"> </span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">You further state: "Nowadays, they [physicists] don't know how to account for a non-deterministic, causal universe." If you are saying that we haven't yet merged QM and General Relativity, then perhaps you're correct (i.e., if String Theory isn't correct), but more generally, I expect that (for example) Alan Guth, Roger Penrose, and Victor Stenger would disagree with you that we "don't know how to account for a non-deterministic, casual universe."</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">I'll illustrate my meaning by responding to the choice you offer re. infinities. My first response is, "Thanks anyway, but no thanks!" Second, I'd say that, in reality, I reject all infinities, since never has any infinity been examined experimentally, only theoretically. Now, to illustrate an alternative to your options, consider the following.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">I trust that we can agree with Emmy Noether that 'time' has no meaning in the absence of energy; therefore, there was no 'before', "before" the Big Bang. Further, let's suppose that Einstein was correct when he said that "the universe [is] matter expanding into nothing that is something", and let's imagine an original "total nothingness", for which 'time' has no meaning. If such a nothing "explored" fluctuations (i.e., if it adopted some "generalized" quantum mechanical behavior), then after some 10^10^10^10... fluctuations (in no time, since there was no energy – and further, fluctuations that occurred "nowhere", since again relying on Noether's theorem, there was no momentum), one such fluctuation (otherwise always in perfect balance, e.g., "positive" and "negative" amounts of energy, fenergy, henergy, genergy or whatever) presumably broke a symmetry, leading to the Big Bang.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Such a scenario has no need for the choice of infinities that you offer; in other words, what appears most reasonable to me is that the universe did indeed "pop out of nothing". That's totally consistent with the well-known result (e.g., see Krauss' video, "A Universe from Nothing", already referenced) that still in our universe the total electrical charge, momentum, and energy (including the negative energy of space) all sum to zero.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;"></span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">By the way, I wonder if you see that the concept of "total nothingness" appears to be amenable to experimental exploration: given that an anti-particle is a hole in space, then upon looking at that hole, one is actually looking at total nothingness! And since anti-particles behave quantum mechanically, it suggests to me that "total nothingness" does obey quantum mechanics (or some more-generalized form of QM, yet to be discovered).</span></blockquote>Upon submitting the above, the automated response appeared: “Your comment is awaiting moderation.” Well, I waited and waited (and am still waiting!); the result: zip! Not only was my comment not approved, but now, all comments are once-again closed. So, all good-little-Muslims who read the comments can rest assured that the nasty Humanist, who attempted to tell the Emperor he has no clothes, has been “bested” by a good Muslim physicist at Cornell. Not only is it censorship (inconsistent with Qhadi’s, “I believe that we need to allow people to express their opinions”); it’s intellectually dishonest: they're not interested in considering new concepts; instead, they desperately intend to defend their delusions.<br />
<br />
Similar happened with the second half of the thread, which the reader can find immediately below the comment from Saad. Notice, first, that the next comment (from Asiah) was on March 22 (four days earlier) at 12:27 PM. As you can see, I went through a similar set of sparring matches (after getting through a moderator’s interference!) until March 23 at 9:37 AM. Then, Umar planted what he no doubt considered to be a knockout blow:<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: magenta;">Umar</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: magenta;">March</span> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: magenta;">23, 2011 • 10:19 AM</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: magenta;">Nick said: “Well, if you’re going to assume that your creator god always existed, then why not, instead, assume that the universe always existed. Then, you have no need of your assumption that some god created the universe.”</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: magenta;">If the universe was eternal (always existed), then it would take an infinite amount of time to get to where we are now, and so we would never actually get here. If you keep going back in time forever, you would never reach the end, according to that viewpoint. Therefore, if you go back forever and then try to come forward in time forever, you would never actually reach the point in time we are now. But we are at this point!</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: magenta;">Therefore the universe had a beginning. According to you, some quantum events may have taken place and bubble theory etc, but if nothing was there to begin with. I mean nothing, no matter, or no antimatter whatever, then nothing would come out of it. If something was there to begin with, that something would have been there for an “infinite” amount of time, and if it this is the case:</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: magenta;">a. it would never get to where we are now, because an infinite amount of time exists between then and now like I explained above</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: magenta;">b. how would that something get there in the first place</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: magenta;">c. what would cause that state to spontaneously change with absolutely no intervention.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: magenta;">You cite the nuclear reactors in Japan, exploding despite no overall momentum to begin with, but if you look at it more deeply, this change in state is caused by uncontrolled nuclear fission, due to the non functioning of the control rod. i.e. sub atomic particles interacting in a certain way. And even these were heated under extremely high temperatures, in the presence of certain elements: cause and effect!</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: magenta;">I ask you, why do you assume the universe always existed, just as you assume that God didn’t create the universe? Did it create itself? Then what gave it the ability to create something from nothing?</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: magenta;">In conclusion, it seems to me that you have placed yourself in a self-defeating position, because to claim something comes from nothing and that causality is not true at the quantum level would be tantamount to saying that your post was not written by you, rather it spontaneously appeared into existence without any cause, and came into being from nothing!</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: magenta;">But we all know out of nothing, nothing comes. This is why you seem to have contradicted yourself by saying it was all possible because of “symmetry-breaking quantum-like fluctuation.” Then I would like to kindly ask you, where did a “symmetry-breaking quantum-like fluctuation” come from? If you respond “from nothing”, well, I would kindly like to reply, “so did your post. It came from nothing. Perhaps there is no Nick on the other side”…. that is the logic you are trying to preach!! Please re-evaluate your stance.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: magenta;">Sorry guys for responding going off topic by responding to Nick. I was actually much more interested in Sh. Yasir Qadhi’s posts, and responses to questions (getting emails for each post), and reading them with silent interest. Lol ha, exactly like he said above: “from the silent majority.”….but the illogical statement of Nick provoked me to answer back.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: magenta;">Salam</span> </blockquote>Of course I attempted to respond to Umar's mistakes and his misrepresentations of what I had written, but before I could, Siraaj posted (on March 23 at 2:12 PM) his statement: “I’m locking discussion on this thread.” How convenient for him and Qadhi’s deluded followers!<br />
<br />
But then, three days later, when the thread was apparently re-opened to slip in the Cornell fellow’s (student’s?) comment, all the “Reply Buttons” were again active! So, I took the opportunity to submit the following response to Umar:<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Umar, now that the moderator has finally permitted me to respond to your comment (subject to "moderation"), I'll try to do so.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">In response and in general, I'll say that, before attempting to ridicule other people and before claiming that they're illogical, you'd be well advised to get their positions clear in your own mind. That way, you have a better chance to avoid looking ridiculous and being illogical, yourself. As cases in point:</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">1. I didn't (and don't) assume that the universe as we know it (i.e., the separation of energy into positive and negative components, the latter contained in space or "the vacuum") always existed. If you'll re-read my post that you quoted, you'll see that I was simply responding to the claim that god always existed. What I was doing was trying to demonstrate how such an idea could easily be shaved with Occam's razor. Instead, as you apparently later realized, I accept the evidence that our universe had a beginning.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">2. Your old argument dealing with infinite time ignores modern ideas about time. If you will check out the ideas developed, e.g., by Feynman, Wheeler, and Cramer (e.g., see the PPT presentation entitled "The Quantum Handshake" that you can find <a href="http://faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/talks.html">here</a>) perhaps you'll see how, as Einstein said, time is just an illusion: the only existence is "now". Certainly, we're familiar with time proceeding in a positive direction from "now", but in the negative energy of space, time seems to proceed in the opposite direction. Meanwhile, at the boundary of "positive and negative existences", light experiences no time: for light, it's always "now". This interpretation of time seems to resolve long-standing dilemmas of quantum mechanics, such as "quantum entanglement".</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">3. With respect to your attempt to ridicule the "something from nothing" concept, I recommend that you first read especially pp. 4-14 of the <a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/Awareness.pdf">reference</a> already provided. In particular, with N = Nothing = zero and S = Something, then Something can easily be created from Nothing via the reaction N → S + (-S), i.e., the creation of something and its negative.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">4. With respect to your quandary about what "nothing" is, I'd recommend that you read my <a href="http://meansnends.blogspot.com/2010/02/god-is-total-nothingness.html">blog post</a> entitled "God is Total Nothingness!" and then re-read the referenced pp. 4-14 to see that, in fact, we do have some experience with "total nothingness", namely, whereas antiparticles are holes in space, and space is otherwise totally filled with negative energy; therefore, a hole in space (i.e., an antiparticle) is "total nothingness".</span></blockquote>This time what happened? Same thing: first “your comments are awaiting moderation”, and then, nothing – except, once again, all “Reply Buttons” went dead.<br />
<br />
In summary, then, as far as the invitation from Qadhi for “dialogue” and his statement “I believe that we need to allow people to express their opinions”, they and the MuslimMatters.org website are shams. Arrangements were obviously made for the two sets of comments to end with one Muslim saying that my physics was wrong and another ridiculing my logic. And since I wasn’t permitted to respond, no doubt all Qadhi’s good-little-Muslim followers can now take comfort with the thought (just as they undoubtedly thought all along) that they were right and the interloper is wrong. It’s still another case of deceitful, clerical shepherds leading fearful, ignorant sheep to be fleeced (in clerical con games) or slaughtered (in clerical “holy wars”).<br />
<br />
Of course, in the overall scheme of things, the experiences described above are insignificant. Evidence can be gathered, however, to support the assessment that, although it was only a couple of snowflakes, they fell on a mountainous glacier of Muslim mendacity.<br />
<br />
To begin to assess that claim, I encourage readers to go to websites such as <a href="http://jihadwatch.org/">JihadWatch.org</a>, <a href="http://faithfreedom.org/">FaithFreedom.org</a>, and the webpage with the sarcastic title “<a href="http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/">The Religion of Peace</a>”. At such sites, peruse the literally tens of thousands of other examples. From such examples, maybe you’ll agree that the term “Muslim mendacity” is highly appropriate, given the list of synonyms for the adjective ‘mendacious’ given in the <i>Oxford American Writer’s Thesaurus:</i><br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">lying, untruthful, dishonest, deceitful, false, dissembling, insincere, disingenuous, hypocritical, fraudulent, double-dealing, two-faced, two-timing, duplicitous, perjured…</span></blockquote>In Arabic, such mendacity is called <i>taqiyya,</i> and as I described in <a href="http://zenofzero.blogspot.com/2010/08/five-structural-errors-in-islam.html">another post</a>, it’s sanctioned (even promoted!) in the Qur’an and Islam’s “traditional literature” (the Hadiths).<br />
<br />
From this experience, from my other experiences described in earlier posts in this blog, and from the three-part analysis that I posted at my other blog (entitled “<a href="http://zenofzero.blogspot.com/2010/07/pathetic-muhammad-pbuh.html">The Pathetic Muhammad</a>”, “<a href="http://zenofzero.blogspot.com/2010/08/five-structural-errors-in-islam.html">Five Structural Errors in Islam</a>”, and “<a href="http://zenofzero.blogspot.com/2010/09/five-foundational-evils-of-islam.html">Five Foundational Evils of Islam</a>”), I find myself in substantial agreement with the following comment on the original article in <i>The New York Times</i> <a href="http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/magazine/mag-20Salafis-t.html?sort=oldest&offset=4">posted</a> by Mohammed Guggen of Seattle on 19 March 2011 at 8:10 PM:<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">I found Mr. Qadhi very wishy-washy in his philosophy on jihad. Between the lines, I found Mr. Qadhi counseling fellow moslems to engage in low jihad in the US ... lie low for now, make incremental gains like getting sharia laws enacted state by state, work for the caliphate to be established and then go all-out on a major jihad/terror in the US.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Sad thing is that if you go to [the] website www.muslimmatters.org most of the comments by his former and current students vehemently disagree with him calling him opportunistic, traitor to the islamic cause, etc. <i>BTW, the website is heavily censored</i>. [Italics added]</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">As a non-practicing moslem for couple of years now, I believe that the free nations of the world must organize a United Front of Victims of Jihad against the Axis of Jihad: Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">The Axis of Jihad nations must be expelled from the community of nations and all international organizations until they are demilitarized, secularized, and democratized.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">The United States, and all free nations, must strictly control immigration from the Islamic world. United State Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part II, § 1182, “Inadmissible Aliens,” forbids “any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the Communist or any other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign.”</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">A “totalitarian party” is defined in the code:</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">“An organization which advocates the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship or totalitarianism. The terms ‘totalitarian dictatorship’ and ‘totalitarianism’ mean and refer to systems of government not representative in fact, characterized by… the existence of a single political party, organized on a dictatorial basis, with so close an identity between such party and its policies and the governmental policies of the country in which it exists, that the party and the government constitute an indistinguishable unit.”</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">As the section above on Islamic constitutions proves beyond any doubt, Islam inarguably is a totalitarian political party at its core. Everywhere it gains power, its “policies and governmental policies” are exclusively and only Islamic dogma, and “the party” – Islam – “and the government constitute an indistinguishable unit,” because Islam commands that Islam and government be one and the same.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Only liberal, pluralistic, and secular democracies are the hope for the Middle East and for all of humanity. No government with the supremacist totalitarianism of Islam and Sharia as its overarching constitutional law can be admitted to the community of nations or to any organization of nations that honors the freedoms and rights of Man.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Free nations must officially declare Islam to be a de jure state, and treat it as such, and treat every one of adherents as citizens of the transnational Islamic state.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Saudi Arabia must pay for exporting imperialist Wahhabi doctrine and terror. Nations of the United Front of Victims of Jihad must bill Saudi Arabia for all of the damage, destruction, and deaths caused by Saudi machinations and money.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Nations of the United Front of Victims of Jihad must support democratic movements and current revolutions in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, and everywhere in the Islamic world. The hope is that Man’s longing for freedom will triumph in those countries, and that their people will get up off their knees and throw off the archaic yokes of slavery that Islam has put on the necks of their ancestors and on their own necks. If Islamic fundamentalists come to power instead, those Islamic countries must be isolated from the rest of humanity by permanent embargoes.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">If and when secularist governments come to power, and expunge Islamic doctrine from their constitutions and laws, then, and only then, should those nations be selectively supported by progressive and free governments worldwide and invited back into the community of nations – on probation.</span></blockquote>And notice who wrote the above: a (courageous) ex-Muslim. Welcome to freedom, Mohammed Guggen of Seattle: “Live long and prosper”.<br />
<div><br />
<a href="http://www.zenofzero.net/">www.zenofzero.net</a></div>A. Zoroasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07473665017762017780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5388644395556254721.post-53573128128497116142010-12-23T03:08:00.000-08:002010-12-25T04:43:09.491-08:00All Clerics are Terrorists••••<br />
I’ve been aware for a long time that all clerics are terrorists; this month, I saw it again.<br />
<br />
A decade-or-so ago, I saw that my then daughter-in-law had been terrorized – by her parents, under the direction of their clerics. Ever since she was a baby, she had been thoroughly indoctrinated in Mormonism (as have my grandchildren), but otherwise, she was (and probably still is) a wonderful woman and mother.<br />
<br />
My wife and I were attempting to convince her not to proceed with divorcing our son, if for no other reason than for the sake of our grandchildren. After being entrapped in Mormonism for more than a decade, our son had finally broken free, apparently after realizing that the Mormon’s Book of Abraham is <a href="http://zenofzero.blogspot.com/2009/08/clerical-quackery-2-judgment-after.html">a complete fake</a> (and therefore, so is the Book of Mormon).<br />
<br />
Addressing our son’s rejection of Mormonism, my wife said to our then daughter-in-law (something close to) “it doesn’t really matter”, to which she responded (something close to): “It matters for the fate of our immortal souls!” In particular, with respect to her own “immortal soul”, we later learned that her mother had told her that our son “was no longer of any use” to her, because no longer being a Mormon, he’d be unable to “whisper her secret name to her” (i.e., the password that she’d need to enter heaven).<br />
<br />
Of course, I then tried to convince her that all talk about gods, devils, immortal souls, heaven, hell, etc. was nonsense, but you can imagine how far I got with that. The final communication relayed to me was: “She hates you.” Well, I certainly don’t hate her. I am, however, extremely sorry for her (and for our grandchildren) that she’s been terrorized.<br />
<br />
Similar is apparently true for the majority of Americans. A 2007 <a href="http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-key-findings.pdf">survey</a> of 35,000 Americans by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that 74% of the surveyed Americans believe in heaven [84% of all Protestants, 82% of all Catholics, 95% of all Mormons, and 85% of all (American) Muslims – but probably close to 100% of all Muslims living in Islamic countries]. The survey also found that 59% of all Americans believe in hell [73% of Protestants, 60% of all Catholics, 59% of all Mormons, and 80% of all (American) Muslims, although again, probably close to 100% of all Muslims living in Islamic countries]. And though one should question the accuracy of the survey results (because the report also states that 12% of all atheists believe in heaven and 10% of them believe in hell!), yet the survey does suggest the horrible extent to which clerics have mentally corrupted – and terrorized – so many Americans.<br />
<br />
Anyway, polls and ancient personal history aside, this month I encountered another example of clerical terrorism. At an Islamic Forum (a different forum from the one mentioned in the previous post), I was reading posts in a <a href="http://www.gawaher.com/index.php?showtopic=734062.html&">thread</a> entitled “Atheism – A Religion which Denies Being a Religion”. In this thread, a tirade by a Muslim writing under the name “Orthodox” reminded me of what Robert Ingersoll wrote:<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Only the very ignorant are perfectly satisfied that they know. To the common man the great problems are easy. He has no trouble in accounting for the universe. He can tell you the origin and destiny of man and the why and wherefore of things. As a rule, he is a believer in special providence, and is egotistic enough to suppose that everything that happens in the universe happens in reference to him…</span> </blockquote>After “Orthodox” had finished (with copious quotes from Islamic “sacred literature”, apparently thinking that they bolstered her arguments), a seemingly more knowledgeable Muslim posting under the name “Rahimi” made some errors, so I decided to try to correct him as follows (post #54):<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Rahimi, I noticed two of your fundamental statements in Post #44 that are at least misleading. Your statement that goes beyond ‘misleading’ to ‘incorrect’, is:</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">…we don’t find systems, laws, precision, order etc arise from chaos and disorder.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">To see that your claim (that order can’t be derived from chaos) is incorrect, I suggest that you read Nobel laureate Ilya Prigogine’s book “Order out of Chaos” or his book “From Being to Becoming”. The essence is that entropy of a particular system can decrease if the system can “feed” on some gradient (e.g., in chemical or gravitational potential). Such is almost certainly how life began on Earth.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Your statement that’s misleading was stated in conjunction with your claim that our universe couldn’t have come from nothing:</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">It is an established scientific fact that something cannot arise from nothing.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">In contrast to your claim, there are two major reasons to assume that our universe did, in fact, come from nothing.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">One reason is because, consistent with Coulomb’s first principle of electrostatics, Newton’s principle of momentum (modified by Einstein), and the first principle of thermodynamics, the total electrical charge, momentum, and energy now in our universe sum to exactly zero. That is, what appears to have happened is that the pre-Big Bang “nothingness” split into positive and negative “somethings” (e.g., the positive energy that congealed into mass and its motion is exactly balanced by the negative energy that fills what we call “space” or “the vacuum”). </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Stated mathematically, it’s easy to get Something (S) from Nothing ( N = 0 ):</span></blockquote><div style="text-align: center;"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">N = 0 = S + ( – S) . </span></div><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">And the second reason that we can conclude that our universe came from separating “nothing” into positive and negative “somethings” is that the concept is also consistent with available data, as reviewed by Lawrence Krauss in his video that you can find on YouTube entitled “A Universe from Nothing”…</span></blockquote>Well, as the interested reader can verify and as even I expected, my post caused Rahimi quite a few problems. In particular, though, in direct response to my comment,<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">…if you can follow everything [Lawrence] Krauss says, then immediately you’ll say goodbye to Zarathustra’s model of the universe and all the silly religions that have followed from it…</span></blockquote>he responded (Post #66), with the following comment, containing ideas completely unrelated to the discussion, but nonetheless, very revealing:<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">And of course there are murderers and killers who try to justify their crimes by subscribing to falsehood such as ‘the survival of the fittest’, ‘war on terror’ and other craps. These are the people who wronged themselves and their final abode and destination is the fire of jahanam (Hell)..</span></blockquote>Amazing! Up to this point in the thread, the focus was on science. All of sudden, he jumped to morality and “the final adobe… Hell.” Startled, I responded (Post #69):<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Ah, maybe now I understand: the real terrorists got to you – those who capture people’s imaginations with the horrors of a fictitious hell. They control people with fear, and not just fear of dying (which is instinctive) but with fear of eternal torture. Succumbing to such fears, people can no longer think for themselves. They become mental slaves.</span></blockquote>That is, just when it appeared that Rahimi might be understanding at-least-a-little of what scientific investigations are suggesting about the origin of the universe (I assume he at least started to look at Krauss’ video “<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo">A Universe from Nothing</a>”), he retreated back into his shell, apparently “shell shocked” by his religion’s warnings about hell – which then led me to this post.<br />
<br />
As I already mentioned, I’ve known about clerical terrorism for a long time, but it impresses (and saddens) me when I encounter it again. Further, as “Catherine” said in the comments section of the <i>New York Times</i> report of the <a href="http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/03/hitchens-vs-rabbi-on-god/?apage=1">debate</a> between Rabbi David Wolpe and Christopher Hitchens, I’ve learned through sad experiences:<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">It’s hopeless to argue against religion because the religious don’t have to stick to reason which should rule a civil debate. They can always defer to blind, senseless faith. It’s like trying to play Chess against someone who insists on playing Dungeons and Dragons.</span></blockquote>In fact, it’s even worse: religious people are trapped in those mental dungeons – and they truly fear those imaginary dragons!<br />
<br />
Maybe to see better what moved me to write this post, suppose the leader of a street gang said to you:<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">Look: my two big brothers used to be in the Mafia. My friends are their friends; my enemies are their enemies.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">You treat me right, you do what I say, and you’ll be okay. One of my brothers is like God: I got money; he’ll make sure you get money. I got things; you’ll get things. I got friends; you’ll get friends.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">Otherwise – well, let me put it this way. My other brother is a real devil: he gets a kick out of digging people’s eyes out with his knife. I dunno why. Maybe he likes to hear people beg to be killed.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">So anyway, there you go. It’s your choice. You got free will. Choose.</span></blockquote>Or suppose a member of an organized crime syndicate said to you (as owner of a small business):<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">Nice little business you got here, but what you need is insurance, so nobody will come in and rob the place, smash the joint, rough-up your customers, and maybe even kill somebody. Lucky for you, me and my boys are in the insurance business. You just give us 10% of your take, and we’ll make sure that you and your business come to no harm. Otherwise, well, ya never can tell what might happen. But it’s your choice. You got free will. Choose. </span> </blockquote>If such happened to you or to someone you cared about, then in free countries, you should inform the police and expect the perpetrators to be prosecuted under laws such as the U.S.’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, which includes fines and punishments for “extortion, blackmail, and terrorism.”<br />
<br />
In the same way, I suggest that, in a sane world, all clerics of all the Abrahamic religions should be similarly charged with extortion, blackmail, and terrorism. As Joseph Lewis said:<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Let me tell you that religion is the cruelest fraud ever perpetrated upon the human race. It is the last of the great scheme of thievery that man must legally prohibit so as to protect himself from the charlatans who prey upon the ignorance and fears of the people. The penalty for this type of extortion should be as severe as it is of other forms of dishonesty.</span></blockquote>But it’s unlikely that we can make much progress in such an approach (e.g., using the RICO Act), because with their extortion and blackmail, the damnable clerics have terrorized people, police, prosecutors, and politicians so badly that they can’t think straight. Examples include “Rahimi”, “Orthodox”, “Yahya” (mentioned in the previous post), and my former daughter-in-law. And the damndest thing is that clerics (with the help of previously indoctrinated parents) don’t stimulate people’s fear and greed using real threats and bribes (as do leaders of street gangs, protection rackets, and other organized crime syndicates): they terrorize people using only imaginary bribes and threats! What a racket.<br />
<br />
Look at it still another way. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President G.W. Bush declared a “War on Terror”. Of course he “miss-spoke” again: war can’t be waged against terrorism; terrorism is a tactic. What he meant to declare (I assume) was a war against terrorists. Much more significantly, however, is that he misidentified the terrorists.<br />
<br />
The terrorists aren’t the would-be bin Ladens of the world: they’re the terrorized. Terrorized by thoughts of eternal torture in hell, they greedily grab empty promises of eternal paradise in heaven, provided they become martyrs in some jihad. Thereby, the bin Ladens of the world are just automatons and drones that the real terrorists use to wage war.<br />
<br />
The real terrorists are the clerics of the world. Their terrorist manuals are ridiculously called “holy books” and “sacred literature”. They terrorize people with data-less, idiotic ideas about gods, devils, immortal souls, heaven, hell, and so on. The worst (especially now in Islam) is their concoction and promotion of the terrors of hell. As Ingersoll wrote more than a century ago:<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">If there is a God who will damn his children forever, I would rather go to hell than to go to heaven and keep the society of such an infamous tyrant. I make my choice now. I despise that doctrine. It has covered the cheeks of this world with tears. It has polluted the hearts of children, and poisoned the imaginations of men. It has been a constant pain, a perpetual terror to every good man and woman and child. It has filled the good with horror and with fear; but it has had no effect upon the infamous and base. It has wrung the hearts of the tender; it has furrowed the cheeks of the good. This doctrine never should be preached again. What right have you, sir, Mr. clergyman, you, minister of the gospel to stand at the portals of the tomb, at the vestibule of eternity, and fill the future with horror and with fear? I do not believe this doctrine, neither do you. If you did, you could not sleep one moment. Any man who believes it, and has within his breast a decent, throbbing heart, will go insane. A man who believes that doctrine and does not go insane has the heart of a snake and the conscience of a hyena…</span></blockquote>To stop such terrorism, to help people break free from clerical enslavement of their thoughts, to help them think for themselves and, therefore, to hold beliefs only as strongly as evidence warrants, education is key.<br />
<br />
Each of us must do what we can to educate people – especially children – about how knowledge of the world is gained (not by “revelation” but by the scientific method) and about at least some of the knowledge already so gained. Once people learn that the most certain knowledge that humans have been able to gain, even more certain than the knowledge that we exist (for we may all be just simulations in a humongous computer game) is that there are no gods or devils (and never were any), then the extortion, blackmail, and terrorism of all clerical con games will be obvious to everyone – and the damn clerics of the world can be prosecuted for being the despicable parasites that they are.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.zenofzero.net/">www.zenofzero.net</a><br />
••••<br />
<div><br />
</div>A. Zoroasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07473665017762017780noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5388644395556254721.post-32839844656076256402010-11-24T05:09:00.000-08:002010-11-26T04:34:13.608-08:00Some Experiences at the Islamic Board Forum••••<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Preface: I wrote most of the following two or three years ago, intending to post it at my <a href="http://zenofzero.blogspot.com/">other blog</a>. [To be more precise, the date on the final save of the document (labeled here as “1. Potential Post”) was 2008/01/02.] Subsequently, however and for reasons mentioned in the text, I decided not to post it.<br />
<br />
This week, I had additional experiences at the same Islamic Board Forum (see “2. Update”, near the end of this post), which some readers might find entertaining – and maybe even educational. Therefore, I decided to put the two pieces together and post them here.</span><br />
<br />
<b>1. Potential Post</b><br />
As readers can partially confirm by going to the <a href="http://www.islamicboard.com/">Islamic Board Forum</a> and searching for all posts by “zoro”, I have been posting at this particular Muslim forum for about a year. I wrote that you could “partially confirm” that statement, because I submitted approximately twice as many as the ~100 posts revealed in the search. The others were deleted (I assume by various “moderators” at the forum) – and all were deleted (save one post) without any explanation provided!<br />
<br />
If you do conduct such a search, you can confirm that my current status is “Account Disabled”. [Update: that was two years ago; I was banned for some (forgotten) number of months.] “Account Disabled” is the Board’s way of publicly advertising that I’ve received a personal notice that I’ve been “Banned”. Again, I was given no reason for my expulsion; in fact, the notice that appears when I try to login [two years ago] explicitly states: “Banned. Reason: No Reason Given.” Perhaps some readers might be interested in explanations – maybe out of curiosity, maybe to learn, and maybe to save yourselves fruitless effort.<br />
<br />
In general, my interactions at the forum were “interesting”. I interacted with some people whom it would be easy to call friends, including the Muslim “Woodrow” [see, however, “2. Update”], “Trumble” (a very impressive Buddhist), “Grace Seeker” (a friendly Christian), and others, as well as several intelligent and well informed secular humanists. The Muslim “Purest Ambrosia”, however, was something else. If you should be inclined to join this forum, watch out for her: it’s not ambrosia she’s peddling; it’s pure poison. [See “2. Update”: she’s now changed her moniker to “The vale’s lily”.] In addition, there were (unfortunately) many Muslims with whom I interacted who are so ill informed that they left me stunned: it was like trying to communicate with children in the midst of their “terrible twos”.<br />
<br />
But preliminaries aside, let me show you a few examples of my posts that were deleted – and I wrote it that way, because typically the post would appear for a short duration (I’m not sure how long), but then, when I checked back at the forum (typically within a day), they were gone. From these examples, you can gain some appreciation for what to expect Muslims won’t tolerate – at least the Muslims in charge of this forum, which Google reports to be one of the two most popular, English-language, Muslim internet forums.<br />
<br />
If you’re interested in posting at the “<a href="http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/">Comparative Religion Section</a>" at the forum, make sure that you never criticize Islam, the Qur’an, or Muhammad, and don’t proselytize for any other religion; then, your proposed posts will normally not be deleted. But I’ve had some posts deleted even in the Comparative Religion Section [Also, see “2. Update”], one with the astounding criticism: “We don’t need discussions of other philosophies here.” With that attitude, the Muslim world will never emerge from its clerically imposed Dark Ages.<br />
<br />
Where I started getting into major troubles with what I call Muslim clerics was in the “<a href="http://www.islamicboard.com/learn-about-islam/">Learn About Islam</a>” Section of the forum. For most of the year that I was posting on the forum, I ignored that section. One day, however, I had a look at a thread started by “madeenahsh” entitled “The 3 Required Characteristics for Seeking Knowledge”. If you look at the Original Post (OP) of the thread, you’ll see that “madeenahsh” quoted some Islamic article that describes a ludicrous way for youngsters to gain “knowledge” – by which Muslim typically mean (and “madeenahsh” and the original author of the article definitely meant) knowledge about Islam. So, I responded to such nonsense with the following (subsequently-deleted) post, in which the quotations are from the article posted by “madeenahsh”.<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">madeenahsh:</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">I think that the article that you quote is inadequate, because (to begin) it inadequately addresses two fundamental questions, namely, 1) What knowledge is sought? and 2) What is meant by ‘knowledge’?</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">With respect to the first question, consider some examples. Is ‘knowledge’ sought about: How to start a fire without a match? How to get a wheel to turn on an axle? How to irrigate crops? How to breed cattle? How to read and write? How to build an airplane? How to build a computer? How to…</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">In particular, if anyone seeks knowledge about how to write an article about “The 3 Required Characteristics for Seeking Knowledge”, then that person would be well advised to learn that the first step is to clearly describe the purpose of acquiring such knowledge – followed closely by what the author also failed to do, namely, define what’s meant by ‘knowledge’.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">What’s commonly meant by ‘knowledge’ is that one possesses a succinct hypothesis about some process that summarizes a substantial quantity of reliable information, that has predictive capability and whose predictions have been validated in a substantial number of experimental tests, and that normally doesn’t conflict with other well-established hypotheses (or “principles”). Such is the knowledge about how to start a fire without a match, how to get a wheel to turn on an axle, how to irrigate crops, and so on. </span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">If the author had addressed those first two questions (what knowledge is sought and what is knowledge), then many “required characteristics for seeking knowledge” would follow – and not necessarily those that the author listed:</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">1) In some cases the student should “adhere to the method of education that those people of knowledge before us adhered to” (insofar as they used the scientific method), but the variety of ways that people have made great discoveries (from Galileo in a church being so bored with a sermon that he started timing a swinging chandelier using his pulse rate, to Newton’s lying on the grass and seeing an apple fall, and from Schrödinger’s panic about what to present in a lecture, to Feynman’s playing his bongo drums) suggests that the student could be well advised to “follow her own fancy!”</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">2) The suggestion that “he should be prepared to sacrifice all of his time to seeking knowledge” is extremely ill advised. As the Seven Sages said: “Moderation in all things.” Thus, experience has shown that it’s much more productive if a student takes time for rest and relaxation – to let her right brain (synthesis capability) make sense of what her left-brain has analyzed.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">As for “the correct way for seeking knowledge”, I disagree with the first two of the “characteristics” listed. Instead, they should be replaced by:</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">1. Make sure you know what problem it is that you’re trying to solve.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">2. Proceed to try to solve the problem at a rate that’s right for you.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">I would agree, however, with the third point listed:</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">3. Be persistent.</span></blockquote>I doubt that many people in the free world would take offense to my post (above) – or even pay much attention to it, since it’s so obvious. The Muslim moderator, however, quickly deleted it.<br />
<br />
I then moved on to a second thread started by “madeenahsh”, this one entitled “About Knowledge – Beneficial Read!” In this thread I posted the following – and it, too, was rather quickly deleted:<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">madeenahsh:</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">I’m disappointed that, in your post, you use so many words without defining them, including ‘knowledge’, ‘good’, ‘comprehension’, ‘religion’, ‘virtue’, ‘understanding’, ‘righteous’, ‘validity’, ‘learning’, ‘sciences’, ‘faith’, ‘certainty’, ‘evidence’, ‘wisdom’, ‘believe’, and ‘truth’.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Furthermore (and more significantly), the meanings that you appear to attribute to such words are inconsistent with their modern meanings. Instead, they are meanings that were commonly used by theologians and “scholastics” of a thousand-and-more years ago, whose ideas have long since been thrown into the trashcan of human mistakes.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Almost 2500 years ago, Socrates said: “There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” Agreeing with him (although I’d prefer if he had said “There is only one good, willingness to learn, and one evil, refusal”), I would suggest that you are potentially promoting much evil by ignoring (or refusing to learn) at least a little of the vast increase in knowledge that has developed during the past thousand-or-so years, ever since Muslims further developed the scientific method, beyond what Hippocrates outlined.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">As Hippocrates (one of Socrates’ contemporaries) said: “There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former beget knowledge; the latter, ignorance.”</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">What you have posted displays just opinions.</span></blockquote>I admit that the above post of mine was a bit more “testy”, but as you can check, the OP was sooooo stupid!<br />
<br />
Next, I moved on to the thread started by “Al Habeshi” entitled “Students of Knowledge… Sites and Time Tables”. You’ll need to look at the proposed “Sites and Time Tables” to get an appreciation for just how dumb they are. But details aside, my now deleted post was the following:<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Al Habeshi:</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Your recommendations for gaining knowledge blatantly conflict with the recommendations of the Arab Human Development Report entitled “Building a Knowledge Society”, which was co-sponsored by the Regional Bureau for Arab States, the UN Development Program, and the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development and which was prepared by 40 distinguished Arab scholars, along with 30 advisers and peer reviewers. </span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">In case you haven’t read the report, its English version is at </span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">http://www.palestineremembered.com/download/UNDP/EnglishVersion/Ar-Human-Dev-2003.pdf</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">and its Arabic version is at</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">http://www.palestineremembered.com/download/UNDP/ArabicVersion/Ar-Human-Dev-2003-ArabicVersion.pdf .</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">If you’ve already read the report, then I think that it’s incumbent upon you to explain why you are proposing to continue methods that have caused and continue to cause so much harm to the mental development of Muslim children.</span></blockquote><b>2. Update</b><br />
I’m not sure, now, why I didn’t finish the above and then post it on my other blog, but perhaps it was because I became too angry: so many of my posts were deleted, and not only was I getting madder and madder at having wasted so much time (only to have the posts deleted at the forum), I then found that I was wasting even more of my time creating the post for my blog!<br />
<br />
In any case, this week I decided to see what was going on at the Islamic Board Forum. I saw that “Woodrow” was still there, as a moderator, but he seems to have become less friendly (see below). Perhaps the cause was that, a year-or-so ago, I had seen how members of the Richard Dawkins (RD) Forum had raked him over the coals. There, he had initiated a thread that basically stated: “I don’t believe atheists exist”. The rather amazing result of that encounter was that, even after his idea was thoroughly ridiculed, he wasn’t humiliated. He was like a little child sassing back: “I can believe whatever I want!” (Which is correct, of course – at least in the free world – but people should expect to be ridiculed for holding ridiculous beliefs.) Incidentally, after his ideas were ridiculed, he seemed to have withdrawn from the RD Forum.<br />
<br />
Anyway, at the Islamic Board’s Forum a few days ago, I posted some comments in the thread <a href="http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/134300747-pascals-wager.html">Pascal’s Wager</a>. A seemingly intelligent Muslim by the name of Yahya Sulaiman had posted the following:<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">Pascal’s Wager is every bit as intellectually dishonest as people on the other side of the argument saying that they don’t believe in religion because of how it “inhibits your freedom” or exists for some sort of purported purpose, etc. – and for the very same reason: the only consideration that should ever go into any decision whether or not to believe something is whether or not that something strikes you as true. Period. Truth trumps. (That’s my motto, actually.)</span></blockquote>To that post, I made the following comment:<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Well, Yahya, I expect that most people maintain a similar motto, but for it to be valuable, an answer (or answers) is needed to the challenging question: How do you determine if some claimed “truth” is true? If you are interested in my (long) response to that challenging question, I’ve posted it (written as letters to my oldest grandchild) at http://zenofzero.net/docs/T1_Truth_&_Knowledge.pdf and at http://zenofzero.net/docs/T2_Truth_&_Understanding.pdf .</span></blockquote>To my question “How do you determine if some claimed ‘truth’ is true?”, Yahya responded:<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">As best you can as a fallible creature, using your rational (and maybe your intuitive) faculties to your utmost. Really, any way would be preferable to whether or not you think believing in something to be advantageous. That’s just hideous.</span></blockquote>To which I replied:<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Oh, I agree: the proof-by-pleasure logical fallacy can lead to hideous consequences. Yet, as I describe in detail in the references already given, it’s profitable to examine details about how to “[use] your rational (and maybe your intuitive) faculties to your utmost.” One finds, for example, that it’s only in “closed systems” (such as games, mathematics, etc.) that “truth” can be determined; in “open systems”, in contrast (e.g., in reality), the most that can be determined (using the scientific method and Bayes’ theorem) is the probability that some claim is true.</span></blockquote>Then came two posts by “the vale’s lily” (formerly “Purest Ambrosia”), the more complete of which is the following. [And it might be interesting to notice that it’s her post number 7,034. Can you imagine it: over 7,000 posts in ~4.5 years, which means an average of more than 4 posts per day, every single day?!]<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">Please if I may give you a brief introduction – Zoro has in the past tried to indoctrinate folks here into his new cult appropriately entitled ‘Zen of Zero’ and I think outside of himself and his oldest daughter that is exactly how many cult members he has.. It is a sort of poetic ‘physics’ and I use the term physics loosely. Once he starts indoctrinating err ‘‘challenging’’ you and per above with his religious pamphlet I believe he has already enclosed it for your perusal and you decide not to succumb to the powers of his miltonic mind he’ll unleash a barrage of his followers on you, since his granddaughter isn’t here, that will leave only his person – of course for which he was banned before.. I understand that by now you’d want to offer me one of your famous chill pills but I think I owe it at least to the new comers to what lies ahead..</span></blockquote>A lovely lady – to whom, of course, I didn’t respond. But I did continue to try to communicate with Yahya, who wrote:<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">What does any of it have to do with whether anything is an open or closed system??</span></blockquote>My response was:<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">It’s an important distinction emphasized by Karl Popper.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">For closed systems (such as all games), truth can be ascertained. For example, in the game of baseball, it’s “true” that “three strikes and you’re out” (according to the rules of the game). Similarly, in pure mathematics (according to the rules of the game), it’s “true” that 1 + 1 = 2.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">For open systems, however (e.g., the human body, legal systems, and all natural systems), we can never be certain that we possess “the truth”; at best, we can determine only the probability that some claim is true (or, similarly, false).</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Einstein made the distinction referring to mathematics as follows:</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: magenta;">As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Thus, for example, if 1 molecule (or mole) of carbon dioxide (CO2) reacts with 1 molecule (or mole) of water (H2O), the result is one molecule (or mole) of carbonic acid (H2CO3), i.e., 1 + 1 = 1. Similarly, if two pieces of putty or two black holes merge, then 1 + 1 = 1.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">The philosophical consequences of such ideas to religion are significant: insofar as they are closed systems (defined by their scriptures), then religious “truths” can be ascertained, but insofar as they are open systems, at best only the probability of the truths of their claims can be determined. For example, if Christianity is treated as a closed system, then the “truth” that Jesus is the son of God can be determined from the New Testament. But in reality, the best that we can do is examine the evidence and, from the evidence, estimate the probability that such a claim is true.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Similarly for the “truth claims” of all religions - thus returning to my original question: How do you determine if some claimed “truth” is true?</span></blockquote>After which, the moderator (Woodrow) quickly added:<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">I believe the topic has been covered the best it can be here. THREAD CLOSED.</span></blockquote>Well, with “thread closed” (but not “case closed”!), a day-or-so later I moved on to another thread; this one entitled “<a href="http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/134301946-atheists.html">To Atheists</a>”. As interested readers can determine, the thread led to some intelligent comments from “titus”, “gator”, “lynx” and others (particularly about whether Allah was playing a game by testing us), plus some belligerent, ignorant comments by (the same) Yahya Sulaiman (and others). So, silly me, I thought I’d enter the fray with a little fun, posting the following:<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Well, I have some good news and some bad news.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">Maybe better: I have what some people will consider to be good news, but which others will consider to be bad news.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">The good news (at least for some people) is this: I can confirm that God exists! Also, I’m able to confirm that God IS testing people: God isn’t just playing games! For some people, however – in fact, for literally billions of people – the bad news is that God’s test is not what they think it is.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">The other day, God let me in on the skinny:</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">She said that it’s not all fun and games running the universe. She asked if I had any idea how hard it was to keep all the physical constants in the universe sufficiently “fine tuned” to permit life to continue, to ensure that pesky old dark energy didn’t blow the universe apart, to ensure that Black Holes didn’t gobble up every galaxy and then merge, returning the universe to its original state of total nothingness, and so on.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">I admitted that I didn’t fully appreciate the difficulties.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">She said that She wanted some help, especially since the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing and dark energy is getting even darker. So, She’s testing people.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">She said She’s looking for a few diligent and intelligent people who hold beliefs only as strongly as relevant evidence warrants. To that end, She sent down a bunch of confusing messages in various “holy books”. The test is: those who believe what’s in such books, basing their beliefs on their own wishful thinking, on what other people say, etc. (rather than basing their beliefs on evidence) fail the test.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">That’s her way to winnow the wheat from the chaff. The chaff, She discards (the elementary particles of which they were made, however, She reuses). Those who pass the test become candidates to help Her.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">By the way, She specifically warned me not to tell anyone about the details of Her test, but shucks, who’s afraid of</span></blockquote>Then what? My post appeared, but by the time I took a break for breakfast, it was gone – along with Woodrow’s:<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">This has gone a step to [sic] far. THREAD CLOSED.</span></blockquote>I also received a message from Woodrow “explaining” the reason for deleting my post: “Not funny and very offensive to theists.”<br />
<br />
What a sorry excuse for a forum moderator! Moderators at other forums are normally assigned the tasks of keeping the discussion on topic and not too heated (e.g., prohibiting direct and explicit insults to other posters). But in this case (in a thread entitled “To Atheists”, no less!), my post was claimed to be “offensive to theists”. It seems not only that in a thread “To Atheists” are atheists not permitted to express opinions but also that it’s offensive for theists to think that atheists might be right – or offensive even for theists to think!<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, it must be perplexing to all other posters in the thread to have the moderator state, “This has gone a step to [sic] far”, since now, there’s no indication of what was “to [sic] far” (i.e., my post). Simultaneously, it’s hilarious and ridiculous!<br />
<br />
Actually, though, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were more to the whole affair – and it’s not so humorous. Thus, I wouldn’t be surprised if moderators on this Islamic forum are charged with forbidding any ideas that might shake any Muslims’ (blind) faith in Allah, Muhammad, and the Qur’an. And I expect that, if the moderators don’t adequately censor “offensive ideas”, then the sponsors (hosting the website), who are probably clerics in Saudi Arabia well funded with petro-dollars, will shut them down.<br />
<br />
For me, the moral of this post is not to waste any more of my time trying to communicate with Muslims at the Islamic Board’s Forum. I’ll leave it to readers to identify other possible morals, e.g., dealing with censorship, the thin skins of so many Muslims, their fear of new ideas, the evils of holding beliefs more strongly than is justified by relevant evidence, and so on.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, on a happier note, this Thanksgiving (tomorrow) I plan to give sincere thanks to those to whom we are indebted for our freedoms. In that respect, I invite you to again read what Robert Ingersoll wrote (which I’ve quoted many times, but never enough):<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: magenta;">When I became convinced that the Universe is natural – that all the ghosts and gods are myths – there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light, and all the bolts, and bars, and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world – not even in infinite space.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: magenta;">I was free: free to think, to express my thoughts – free to live to my own ideal – free to live for myself and those I loved – free to use all my faculties, all my senses – free to spread imagination’s wings – free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope – free to judge and determine for myself – free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the “inspired” books that savages have produced, and all the barbarous legends of the past – free from popes and priests – free from all the “called” and “set apart” – free from sanctified mistakes and holy lies – free from the fear of eternal pain – free from the winged monsters of night – free from devils, ghosts, and gods.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: magenta;">For the first time I was free. There were no prohibited places in all the realms of my thought – no air, no space, where fancy could not spread her painted wings – no chains for my limbs – no lashes for my back – no fires for my flesh – no master’s frown or threat – no following another’s steps – no need to bow, or cringe, or crawl, or utter lying words.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: magenta;">I was free. I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously, faced all worlds. And then my heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heroes, the thinkers who gave their lives for the liberty of hand and brain, for the freedom of labor and thought – to those who fell on the fierce fields of war – to those who died in dungeons bound with chains – to those who proudly mounted scaffold’s stairs – to those whose bones were crushed, whose flesh was scarred and torn – to those by fire consumed – to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land, whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And I vowed to grasp the torch that they had held, and hold it high, that light might conquer darkness still.</span></blockquote>www.zenofzero.net<br />
••••A. Zoroasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07473665017762017780noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5388644395556254721.post-85638137275474710262010-10-31T16:53:00.000-07:002010-11-02T06:37:46.983-07:00Stop Clerical Graft!<div style="text-align: center;">••••<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;"><b>Refuse to Pay</b></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="color: blue; text-align: center;">A wise man once said, a long time ago, <br />
“All people by nature desire to know”;<br />
Yet, more should be said, for progress to grow:<br />
All claims to be knowledge – what tests say it’s so?<br />
<br />
What truth in the claims of creationists<br />
At odds with ideas from top scientists?<br />
What rule proves the “truth” that God even exists?<br />
Did unstable “nothing” yield all that persists?<br />
<br />
And what of the claims about heaven and hell?<br />
They seem to be stories that children would tell.<br />
The stories of Gabriel, Emmanuel…<br />
All play on emotions – like detrital smell!<br />
<br />
Emotions are certainly helpful to use,<br />
But who doesn’t know how emotions abuse?<br />
A feeling can be a confusing sad ruse<br />
And yet be adopted as trustworthy news!<br />
<br />
Emotions can’t answer: 2 added to 2?<br />
But logic can frequently show us what’s true;<br />
Yet, logic is under some huge constraints too,<br />
For logic can’t find information that’s new.<br />
<br />
With logic you test what you might just assume;<br />
But logic can’t even begin to illume<br />
The premisses hidden in nothing but fume – <br />
From which any “truth” can be forced to exhume!<br />
<br />
Emotion and logic possess their own blight.<br />
There’s only way to get truth in the light.<br />
The method (by which science earned all its might): <br />
Guess, test, and assess if predictions are right!<br />
<br />
Please try it yourself: you say there’s a god?<br />
Predict what would happen. I dare you. I prod!<br />
You’ll find as I did, something really quite odd:<br />
That truth in such tests is ridden roughshod!<br />
<br />
All clerical "truths" are nothing but lies:<br />
The “proofs” that they claim are what logic denies;<br />
They choose only “truths” that emotionalize; <br />
In turn, each “truth’s” source is what fools fantasize.<br />
<br />
No evidence backs any clerical claims,<br />
But lots of it shows all clerics’ true aims:<br />
Exactly reverse from what each one proclaims,<br />
They run the world’s oldest and richest con games!<br />
<br />
They tell you: “Your role is only to serve<br />
A powerful god who will always observe;<br />
At death, he’ll pass judgment on what you deserve;<br />
So, do what we say – and your soul we’ll preserve!”<br />
<br />
Far better, know nothing, as Josh Billings said,<br />
Than know what ain’t so. But people so dread<br />
The con artists’ claims about after they’re dead,<br />
They give up their life and seek death now instead. <br />
<br />
Enough with the clerics and games that they play;<br />
We’ll never make progress by going that way.<br />
The “truths” clerics claim just lead people astray;<br />
Stop clerical graft by refusing to pay!</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><a href="http://zenofzero.net/"> www.zenofzero.net</a><br />
••••A. Zoroasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07473665017762017780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5388644395556254721.post-27817442260066800772010-09-19T16:28:00.000-07:002010-09-20T02:03:33.677-07:00On Where to Build the Ground-Zero, Multifaith Center–––––<br />
In his 7 September 2010 op-ed <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/opinion/08mosque.html">article</a> in <i>The New York Times,</i> the Islamic cleric who seeks to build a “community center in Lower Manhattan” (originally called the Cordoba House and commonly called “the Ground-Zero Mosque”), Feisal Abdul Rauf, states:<br />
<blockquote><span style="color: purple;">My life’s work has been focused on building bridges between religious groups and never has that been as important as it is now.</span></blockquote>His description of the new “bridge” he proposes includes:<br />
<blockquote><span style="color: purple;">Above all, the project will amplify the multifaith approach that the Cordoba Initiative has deployed in concrete ways for years… Our initiative is intended to cultivate understanding among all religions and cultures.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: purple;">Our broader mission – to strengthen relations between the Western and Muslim worlds and to help counter radical ideology – lies not in skirting the margins of issues that have polarized relations within the Muslim world and between non-Muslims and Muslims. It lies in confronting them as a joint multifaith, multinational effort.</span></blockquote>In an 8 September 2010 <a href="http://www.floppingaces.net/2010/09/09/imam-rauf-on-larry-king-live-with-soledad-obrian/">interview</a> with Soledad O’Brien, Rauf added:<br />
<blockquote><span style="color: purple;">You must remember, Soledad, and Americans must remember, that what we do is watched all over the world… If you don’t do this right, anger will explode in the Muslim world. If this is not handled correctly, this crisis could become much bigger than the Danish cartoon crisis, which resulted in attacks on Danish embassies in various parts of the Muslim world.</span></blockquote>So, thereby, Rauf threatens us with Muslim madness: if we in the West don’t behave “correctly”, if Muslims don’t get what they want, then once again, psychologically immature Muslim maniacs will throw temper tantrums.<br />
<br />
Well, Mr. Bridge Builder, I have a suggestion for you:<br />
<blockquote>• Whereas, in general, Western tolerance is already exemplary;<br />
<br />
• Whereas we in the West (who have freedoms of speech and of the press) are already able to learn as much about other cultures as we desire;<br />
<br />
• Whereas we in the West are beginning to understand, quite well, thank you very much, some of the <a href="http://zenofzero.blogspot.com/2010/08/five-structural-errors-in-islam.html">errors</a> and <a href="http://zenofzero.blogspot.com/2010/09/five-foundational-evils-of-islam.html">evils</a> of Islam, including its blatant intolerance of unbelievers in Islamic balderdash (e.g., the Koran’s injunction for Muslims to “kill the infidels”);<br />
<br />
• Whereas you claim that your goal is to “cultivate understanding” in a “multifaith, multinational effort”, “to strengthen relations between the Western and Muslim worlds”; and<br />
<br />
• Whereas the King of Saudi Arabia, the “Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques”, has been promoting “<a href="http://zenofzero.blogspot.com/2008/03/open-letter-to-king-of-saudi-arabia.html">interfaith dialogue</a>” and surely would provide you with financial support to build your “multifaith center” ($100 million being mere pocket-change for him);</blockquote>Therefore, I strongly recommend that you don’t try to build your “interfaith center” anywhere near where Muslim maniacs murdered thousands of innocent civilians – including anywhere in New York City, in America, or in the West – but instead, build it where it’s obviously so sorely needed: at the Ground Zero of Intolerance, Mecca.<br />
<br />
Stated differently, if you truly want to “promote tolerance” and “counter radical ideology”, then I recommend that you stop “skirting the margins of issues that have polarized relations within the Muslim world and between non-Muslims and Muslims”, and instead, put all your efforts into trying to show Muslims how civilized people live.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.zenofzero.net/">www.zenofzero.net</a>A. Zoroasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07473665017762017780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5388644395556254721.post-28926846246308406482010-09-16T15:01:00.000-07:002010-09-19T02:58:16.714-07:00September 11th: Discard a “holy book” Day––––<br />
In the U.S., we have ten legal Federal holidays (from New Year’s Day and Martin Luther King Day to Veteran’s Day and Thanksgiving Day). We call them ‘holidays’ (a word derived from Old English <i>hāligdæg</i> meaning “holy day”, in turn from Dutch and German <i>heilig</i>, meaning ‘holy’ or ‘sacred’), but the religious connotation for such days is generally gone – except insofar as the word ‘holy’ is derived from the Greek word meaning ‘separated’, and on such days, most of us separate ourselves from work! Also, both officially and unofficially, we generally recognize many other special days – and even weeks and months (e.g., Groundhog Day, Children’s Book Week, and Native Heritage Month).<br />
<br />
The purpose of this post is to recommend that September 11th (or 9/11) be adopted as <i><b>Discard a “holy book” Day.</b></i> Here, by ‘discard’, I don’t necessarily mean burn, bury, or do similar to your “holy book”. For example, you may want to recycle it or trade it in for a better book. Yet, if you own a “holy book” and there’s no concern about air pollution, then if you’re so inclined, burning it would be good. <br />
<br />
I should also admit that I’m generally opposed to destroying things. In some cases, however, e.g., in the case of bedbugs, black-widow spiders, and bacteria causing diseases from botulism to bubonic plague, destruction seems desirable – and without doubt, the world is certainly plagued with “holy books”, witness:<br />
<blockquote>• Estimates are <a href="http://www.biblestudy.org/beginner/why-are-there-so-many-bibles-in-the-world.html">available</a> that there are approximately 7.5 billion Bibles in the world. Since 1908, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideons_International">Gideons</a> alone, have distributed “close to 1.5 billion” Bibles. Last year, the Gideons distributed 26,000 Bibles in Chattanooga, TN, alone (population of ~ 500,000).<br />
<br />
• <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books">Approximately</a> 800 million copies of the Koran have been sold; I couldn’t find an estimate for how many copies of the Koran have been given away, but <a href="http://loganswarning.com/2009/12/16/muslims-distribute-200000-korans-in-mich-hou-chicago/">last year</a>, “about 18,000 to 20,000 copies” of the Koran were hung on doorknobs in Dearborn, MI, alone (population ~90,000), <a href="http://askville.amazon.com/Book-Signs-Foundation-distributing-copies-Koran/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=11425772">and</a> “from July 2007 to May 2008, 70,000 [copies of the Koran]… were distributed in Chicago and 30,000 in Houston.”<br />
<br />
• Even the relatively minor Mormon cult (membership claimed to be about 10 million) has <a href="http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/37635/Book-of-Mormon-milestone-100-million-copies-printed-and-sent-around-the-world.html">printed</a> more than 100 million copies of their Book of Mormon and distributed them around the world.</blockquote>Thus, even without inquiring of Google how many other “holy books” have been printed, it seems obvious that the world is infected with “holy books.”<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, of course it’s silly to call any book ‘holy’ – in my dictionary’s sense of “dedicated or consecrated to God”, because the most certain knowledge that humans have been able to gain (even more certain than the knowledge that we exist!) is that <a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/IiIndoctrinationinIgnorance.pdf">no god exists or has ever existed</a>. More realistically, “holy books” are “dedicated and consecrated” to the clerics who peddle them in their con games for their own profit, in lieu of working for a living.<br />
<br />
Further, the reasoning of one of the most influential founders of the American government, Thomas Paine (1737-1809), in his 1794 book <i>The Age of Reason</i> should have put the silliness to rest, once-and-for-all, that “holy books” are “revelations” from God. An illustration of Paine’s reasoning is given in the following quotation – for which I’ve taken the liberty to update some of its punctuation and spelling and I’ve added a few consistent changes and comments in brackets [such as these].<br />
<blockquote><span style="color: blue;">Every… </span>[organized, revealed] <span style="color: blue;">religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals: the Jews have their Moses; the Christians</span> [have] <span style="color: blue;">their Jesus Christ… the</span> [Muslims] <span style="color: blue;">have their Muhammad</span> [and, after Paine wrote this, the Mormons had the Rigdon-Smith conspiracy]<span style="color: blue;">… Each of those</span> [religions rely on]<span style="color: blue;">… certain books, which they call revelation, or the word of God: the Jews say that their word of God was given by God to Moses, face to face; the Christians say that their word of God came by divine inspiration; and the</span> [Muslims]<span style="color: blue;"> say that their word of God was brought by an angel from Heaven</span> [just as the Mormons claim, for their Book of Mormon]<span style="color: blue;">. Each of those</span> [religions] <span style="color: blue;">accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the subject, offer some other observations on the word ‘revelation’. Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man. No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if He pleases</span> [if he were to exist!]<span style="color: blue;">. But admitting, for the sake of</span> [argument]<span style="color: blue;">, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that</span> [first] <span style="color: blue;">person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">It is a contradiction in terms and ideas to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication – after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two tables of the Commandments from the hands of God, they were not obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for it than his telling them so; and I have no other authority for it than some “historian” telling me so. The commandments carry no internal evidence of divinity with them; they contain some good moral precepts, such as any man qualified to be a lawgiver, or a legislator, could produce himself, without having recourse to supernatural intervention.</span> [Paine adds the footnote: <span style="color: blue;"> “It is, however, necessary to except the declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children; it is contrary to every principle of moral justice.”</span>]<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">When I am told that the Quran was written in Heaven and brought to Muhammad by an angel, the account comes too near the same kind of hearsay evidence and second-hand authority as the former</span> [and similarly for the Book of Mormon]<span style="color: blue;">. I did not see the angel myself, and, therefore, I have a right not to believe it.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">When also I am told that a woman called the Virgin Mary, said, or gave out, that she was with child without any cohabitation with a man, and that her betrothed husband, Joseph, said that an angel told him so, I have a right to believe them or not. Such a circumstance requires much stronger evidence than their bare word for it. But we have not even this – for neither Joseph nor Mary wrote any such matter themselves; it is only reported by others that they said so. It is hearsay upon hearsay, and I do not choose to rest my belief upon such evidence…</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion. It has been the most destructive to the peace of man since man began to exist. Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses, who gave an order to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and then rape the daughters. One of the most horrible atrocities found in the literature of any nation. I would not dishonor my Creator’s name by attaching it to this filthy book…</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">The study of theology… is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion… All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit…</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst; every other species of tyranny is limited to the world we live in; but this attempts to stride beyond the grave, and seeks to pursue us into eternity.</span></blockquote>In reality, it’s been well known for more than a century that the “revelations” recorded in all “holy books” are just records of ignorant speculations by primitive people. Some examples of such assessments are the following:<br />
<blockquote><span style="color: magenta;">All men have heard of the Mormon Bible, but few except the “elect” have seen it, or, at least, taken the trouble to read it. I brought away a copy from Salt Lake. The book is a curiosity to me, it is such a pretentious affair, and yet so “slow”, so sleepy, such an insipid mess of inspiration. It is chloroform in print. [Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain; 1835–1910)]</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">I studied the Koran a great deal ... I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. [Alexis De Tocqueville (1805–59)]</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: magenta;">Having thus given a cursory view of the Qur’an I lay it before the sensible persons, with the purpose that they should know what kind of book the Qur’an is. If they ask me, I have no hesitation to say that it cannot be work either of God or of a learned man, nor can it be a book of knowledge. The Qur’an is the result of ignorance, the source of animalization of humans… a fruitful cause of destroying peace, an incentive to war, a propagator of hostility amongst men and a promoter of suffering in society. [Dayananda Saraswati (1824–83)] </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">A God who could make good children as easily as bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave his angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice, and invented hell – mouths mercy, and invented hell – mouths Golden Rules and forgiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people, and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man’s acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites his poor abused slave to worship him! [Mark Twain (1835–1910)]</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: magenta;">This Bible bears every evidence of being a book like every other book, conceived by man, written by man, altered by man, translated by man, printed by man, but – and this is where it differs from every other book – the Bible is swallowed by man. And it has disagreed with him; [but] man has not digested it properly through lack of sufficient dissection of its parts. It has been taken with a spiritual sauce that has disguised its real flavor. Anything in the Bible, no matter how raw, is taken as God’s food. It is used to demonstrate problems of diet which do not provide a balanced ration; it is accepted by the gullible though contradicted by the revelations of Geology, Astronomy, Anthropology, Zoology, and Biology. Taken as prescribed by the doctors of divinity, the Bible is a poisonous book. [William Floyd, 1871–1943]</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">The longer we live the more are we convinced that no adult person would accept the Bible as a divine work if he had not been taught the dogma of the Bible’s divinity when a child. Let the matured mind come to the perusal of the Bible without the religious prejudice in favor of its divine character, and it would reject the book as unworthy the consideration of the intelligent, educated mind. Let the refined sense, which all education in art, manners and social morals seeks to cultivate, begin to read the Bible, without the religious prejudice in favor of its sacred character, and before a dozen pages had been read, it would close the volume with disgust and hide it out of sight, or burn it as soon as possible.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">The Bible’s divinity rests upon the mental and moral corruption of the young. Were children not taught that this book was sacred, men and women would look upon it as unholy. Do people realize what harm they are doing to the mind of the child when they teach it to accept the Bible as God’s word? They are telling the child that falsehood is sacred; that ignorance is holy; that foul stories are pure; that vile words are clean, in the mouth of God. Fathers and mothers would not tell their children what they, and what priests and ministers, tell them God wrote or inspired man to write. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">What is needed today is to tell the truth about the Bible. Tell men and women that ignorant, uncultured, unrefined men wrote it hundreds of years ago, and that it is unfit in its present shape to put into the hands of a child that a mother wishes to grow up honest, true and pure. Liberals should not allow their children to touch the Bible. They should keep it from them until they are old enough to know that no book was ever written by a god, and then, if they read the Bible, they would see its true character. We must guard the minds of our children from Christian influences. We pity the child that is taught that the Bible is the word of God, but we despise the man that teaches this falsehood. [Lemuel K. Washburn (1846–1927)]</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: purple;">If a man would follow, today, the teachings of the Old Testament, he would be a criminal. If he would follow strictly the teachings of the New, he would be insane…</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: purple;">The real oppressor, enslaver, and corrupter of the people is the Bible. That book is the chain that binds, the dungeon that holds the clergy. That book spreads the pall of superstition over the colleges and schools. That book puts out the eyes of science, and makes honest investigation a crime. That book fills the world with bigotry, hypocrisy and fear.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: purple;">The book, called the Bible, is filled with passages equally horrible, unjust and atrocious. This is the book to be read in schools in order to make our children loving, kind and gentle! This is the book they wish to be recognized in our Constitution as the source of all authority and justice!</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: purple;">How long, O how long will mankind worship a book? How long will they grovel in the dust before the ignorant legends of the barbaric past? How long, O how long will they pursue phantoms in a darkness deeper than death? [Robert G. Ingersoll (1833–1899)]</span></blockquote>In the subsequent century and more, even more damning assessments have been made of all “holy books”, but I’ll leave it to readers to explore such assessments on their own. For reasons detailed <a href="http://zenofzero.net/">elsewhere</a>, my own summaries are: <a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/Qx20_Biblical_Balderdash.pdf">as bad as the Bible is</a> (<a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/Qx24_LDS_Ludicrousness_-_4.pdf">and similarly, the Book of Mormon</a>), <a href="http://zenofzero.blogspot.com/2010/08/five-structural-errors-in-islam.html">the Koran is that much worse</a>.<br />
<br />
Here, I’ll end this post just with the serious recommendation that it would be good if everyone in the world would commemorate one of the innumerable hideous consequences of permitting “holy books” to pollute the world by denoting 9/11 as<b> Discard a “holy book” Day</b> – and do so!<br />
<br />
Although, come to think of it, if you would prefer not to restrict yourself to discarding “holy books” only on September 11th, then I certainly wouldn’t try to deter you. In my view, the more “holy books” trashed, the better.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.zenofzero.net/">www.zenofzero.net</a><br />
–––––––––––––––A. Zoroasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07473665017762017780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5388644395556254721.post-24606934689580110532010-08-05T13:57:00.000-07:002010-08-22T02:37:52.463-07:00A Monument to Folly•••<br />
Yesterday, an ignorant and therefore dangerous editorial about the proposed “Ground-Zero Mosque” was published in <i>The New York Times.</i> Below, I’ve reproduced the first part of the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/opinion/04wed1.html?hp">editorial</a>, with comments inserted.<br />
<blockquote><span style="color: purple;">August 4, 2010</span><br />
<b style="color: purple;">A Monument to Tolerance</b><br />
<br />
<span style="color: purple;">It has been disturbing to hear and read the vitriol and outright bigotry surrounding the building of a mosque two blocks from the site of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. So it was inspiring when New York City’s Landmarks Preservation Commission voted 9 to 0 on Tuesday to reaffirm one of the basic tenets of democracy: religious tolerance.</span></blockquote>What a horrible paragraph! First, it’s flat-out wrong to claim that the Commission’s vote dealt with “religious tolerance”; in reality, it voted on the only measure that it could, i.e., the proposal to identify the current building as a “landmark site”. Thereby, claiming that such a vote was for “religious tolerance” is a red herring. And as for describing opposition to the Mosque as “vitriol and outright bigotry”, such as statement is, itself, nothing but “vitriol and outright bigotry”.<br />
<blockquote><span style="color: purple;">Instead of caving in to the angry voices – many but not all of them self-promoting Republican politicians – commissioners paved the way for construction of the mosque and Islamic center. It was not just the right thing to do, it was the only thing to do.</span></blockquote>What astoundingly biased writing! Instead of writing “Instead of caving in to the angry voices”, how about writing: “Instead of being responsive to the majority of New Yorkers”? As for “self-promoting Republican politicians”, are we to expect that they would promote Democrats? Don’t politicians generally promote themselves and their party? And as for “it was the only thing to do”, No! Just as the original American patriots did, the commissioners could have violated the law to defend our freedoms. That would have been “inspiring”.<br />
<blockquote><span style="color: purple;">The attacks of Sept. 11 were not a religious event. They were mass murder. The American response, as President Obama and President George W. Bush before him have said many times, was not a war against Islam.</span></blockquote>For a change, the editorial's writer got something correct – but what’s stated is correct for multiple, incorrect reasons! First, it’s correct to say that “the attacks of Sept. 11 were not a religious event”, but not because Islamists didn’t consider the attacks a religious event. Instead, “the attacks… were not a religious event”, because Islam is not a religion: Islam uses the trappings of religion to promote the political goal of world domination – just as the Nazis did (recall, “Gott mit uns”). Second, yes, it’s correct to say that the attacks were “mass murder”, but by associating the second sentence with the first, the writer misleads the reader: if the writer were knowledgeable and honest, the two sentences would have led the reader to conclude, correctly, that just as the Nazis did, Islamists engage in “mass murder” in pursuit of their supremacist goal. And yes, the third sentence in the above paragraph does describe “the American response”, but the writer fails to mention how seriously in error the American response has been: Americans have failed to recognize that the threat of Islam is essentially the same as were the threats from Nazism and Communism. <br />
<blockquote><span style="color: purple;">It was not surprising that Republican ideologues like Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin came out against the mosque. A Congressional candidate in North Carolina has found it to be a good way to get attention and, yes, stoke prejudice against Muslims. We expect this sort of behavior from these kinds of Republicans. They have been shamelessly playing the politics of fear since 9/11.</span></blockquote>Talk about shameless! I’m not a Republican, but I don’t consider attempts to alert the public to the dangers of Islam to be “playing the politics of fear”; instead, I consider ignoring the dangers of Islam to be playing the politics of burying one’s head in the sand while wearing rose-colored glasses. Has the writer read the Koran? If not, here’s a brief summary: similar to Hitler’s <i>Mein Kampf</i>, the Koran describes Muhammad’s plan for how his henchmen can rule the world.<br />
<blockquote><span style="color: purple;">Some of the families of the victims of the attacks, who deserve our respect and sympathy, are uneasy about the mosque. But it would be a greater disservice to the memories of their loved ones to give into the very fear that the terrorists wanted to create and, thus, to abandon the principles of freedom and tolerance.</span></blockquote>But it would be not nearly so great a “disservice” (to both the victims and their families) as for the ignorant journalist who wrote the editorial to suggest that opposing another Islamic mosque abandons “the principles of freedom”! Instead, banning all Mosques in America (just as meeting places for Nazis and Communists were banned) would be a beachhead in defense of freedom, because if Muslims succeed in their plans, then American freedoms will vanish as fast as the Islamists can scream “Allah Akbar”.<br />
<br />
The rest of the editorial is just twaddle, suggesting that neither the authors of a statement by the Anti-Defamation League (a statement criticized in the editorial) nor Mayor Bloomberg (with his statement that the proposed mosque is “as important a test of separation of church and state as any we may see in our lifetime”) understand Islam. When are such ignorant people going to learn something about what they’re apparently so eager to talk about and defend? For example, in Islam there’s no such thing as separation of religion and state. Again, Islam is not a religion: it’s a political ideology that uses the trappings of religion to further its political agenda – and fool the ignorant.<br />
<br />
In summary, the proposed mosque wouldn’t be (as stated in the editorial’s heading) “a monument to [American] tolerance”. Instead, it would be a monument to American folly and to Islamic deceit (i.e., <i>taqiyya</i>).<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.zenofzero.net/">www.zenofzero.net</a><br />
•••A. Zoroasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07473665017762017780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5388644395556254721.post-74388591771714511772010-06-28T10:36:00.000-07:002010-06-29T18:06:32.396-07:00An Open Letter to Bill Gates and Warren Buffett<div><br /></div>Gentlemen: Thank you for your philanthropy and for your recent <a href="http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2010/06/16/gates-buffett-600-billion-dollar-philanthropy-challenge/">initiative</a> to stimulate other billionaires to <a href="http://givingpledge.org/">pledge support</a> for what they consider to be worthy causes. In this letter, I hope to convey some ideas about the term “worthy causes” and to provide some examples for your further consideration – examples for which (I hasten to add, in an attempt to keep your attention) I have zero financial and only philanthropic interest.<br /><br />That the meaning of “worthy causes” deserves further consideration can be illustrated with the banner and frequently repeated slogan at the website of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation: “<a href="http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Pages/home.aspx">All Lives Have Equal Value</a>”. Of course it’s common to try to summarize any organization’s mission in a short, memorable slogan, but surely the Foundation’s choice is not optimal: it’s not generally accepted as correct (e.g., the majority of people would probably maintain that a murderer’s life has less value than the life of the murderer’s victim) and it’s ambiguous (e.g., one can immediately ask, “Value for what?”).<br /><br />I expect that the idea contained in the Foundation’s <a href="http://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/Pages/guiding-principles.aspx">Guiding Principle #14</a> is closer to the intended meaning of the Foundation’s goal, namely, “To increase opportunity and equity for those most in need.” This statement too, however, seems deficient, since as Communism demonstrated, ‘need’ is a nebulous term: are those “in need” most in need of food, health, education, money, intelligence, ambition, determination, perseverance, a sound morality, “street smarts”, or what?<br /><br />The first point I would therefore suggest for your consideration is that, whereas words such as ‘worthy’, ‘value’ and ‘need’ have meaning only relative to some objective, then before rationally engaging in any philanthropic activity (literally meaning “[activity showing] love of humanity”), the critical first step is to establish objectives. Once objectives are defined, than any activity’s value or worthiness can be judged relative to the chosen objectives.<br /><br />Now, granted that some people may respond that any act showing love of humanity is philanthropic; love is valuable; therefore, all philanthropic activities are of value. Such an opinion demonstrates some logic, but it suffers from three major inadequacies: 1) It neglects to address the question “why is love valuable?”, 2) It provides no practical guidance for how to show “love of humanity” (one could, for example, publish a poem that conveys one’s love for humanity), and 3) For philanthropic people or foundations with finite budgets, it provides no practical guidance for determining what philanthropy contains the most value for the investment?<br /><br />The guests at your first <a href="http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2010/06/16/gates-buffett-600-billion-dollar-philanthropy-challenge/">dinner meeting</a> obviously had already attempted to address such problems for themselves, and the report of the resulting discussion describes the expected philanthropic topics: “education, again and again; culture; hospitals and health; the environment; public policy; the poor generally.” Listing such topics, however, does little to gain traction answering questions about how to proceed.<br /><br />To gain some traction, a first step is to assign a meaning to ‘value’ relative to a more concrete and practical objective. One possible objective can be derived by modifying the Gates’ Foundation Guiding Principle #14. For example, perhaps Guiding Principle #14 should be changed from “to increase opportunity and equity for those most in need” to the shorter statement: “to increase human opportunities.” Such a statement, however, admittedly seems too general, especially when funds are limited.<br /><br />I therefore suggest that, to gain substantially more traction, it’s necessary to start from some fundamentals. Consequently, I request your additional forbearance while I first review some fundamentals. After doing so, I’ll apply the results to suggest solutions to the problem at hand.<br /><br />The basic question is: What’s the purpose? The more general and fundamental question is: What’s the purpose of life? Fortunately, a simple and obviously correct (even if somewhat tautological) answer is: <a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/P01_The_Purpose_of_Life.pdf">the purpose of life is to live</a>.<br /><br />More complicated is to identify the prime purpose of humans, where by “prime purpose” is meant (as in systems theory) the goal (or set of goals) for which all other (then, lower-priority) goals would be sacrificed to achieve the prime goal (or goals). Identifying our prime goals may seem to be complicated, but in the end (as I’ve analyzed <a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/BoardMeeting.pdf">elsewhere</a>), the result is rather simple and obvious. Thus, all humans pursue an interdependent trio of survival (or “thrival”) goals: of themselves, their families (whatever they recognize as the extent of their “families”), and their values.<br /><br />As might be expected and as I’ve also analyzed still <a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/V_Values_&_Objectives.pdf">elsewhere</a>, defining, understanding, and identifying the origins of the values held by a particular person or group of people can be fairly complicated. For rational agnostic or secular or scientific humanists such as yourselves, however, it’s a relatively easy task and the results are rather obvious. For example, recognizing all humans to be members of the same “human family”, we value that which (in the more general version of the Foundation’s Guiding Principle #14) “increases human opportunities.”<br /><br />Other summaries with similar meaning, however, can be more transparent. For example, as Robert Ingersoll said in his last public address (in 1899):<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">Man has a little intelligence, and he should use it. Intelligence is the only lever capable of raising mankind.</blockquote>Thus, consistent with Ingersoll’s assessment and with the principle “to increase human opportunities”, other statements of the goal could be “to help solve human problems more intelligently”, “to help intelligence go on”, and <a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/X04_EXamining_Goals.pdf">similar</a>, where ‘intelligence’ can be displayed in the full range of human accomplishments, from poetry to physics, from cooking to computing, from dancing to diplomacy, and so on.<br /><br />With such statements of the overall goal in mind, one can now rationally address the question: What projects would be most worthwhile (relative to the adopted goal) and be most efficaciously undertaken by philanthropic individuals or foundations with large (but finite) financial resources? In addressing that question, it’s essential (of course) to account for other ongoing philanthropic and governmental activities, since duplication of effort certainly isn’t efficacious. It’s also important to realize that most governments are constrained from undertaking many worthwhile activities.<br /><br />As a result of such considerations, one set of philanthropic activities commonly pursued deals with human health. Thus, just as health is fundamental for individuals and their families to thrive, it’s common for philanthropic organizations to consider ways to help more humans live more healthful lives – or even to help them to just survive. Whether or not such activities are efficacious, however, leads to many questions, such as the following:<br /><br />• In view of the enormous ongoing investments in improving human health (by other NGOs, industries, and governmental organizations, including the WHO), what new philanthropic activity would be efficaciously undertaken?<br /><br />• What are root causes of specific hindrances to human health; in particular, is the root cause of the poor health of so many of the world’s poor simply that there are too many people straining limited natural resources?<br /><br />• In such cases and in the long run, would short-term amelioration of a specific hindrance to human health actually lead to even greater human misery, e.g., resulting from even more population pressures on limited natural resources?<br /><br />Such questions then commonly lead to considerations of ways that philanthropic organizations might assist humanity to engage in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_development">sustainable development</a>, which as you know, is a huge subject area. In this letter, therefore, I’ll necessarily treat the subject superficially.<br /><br />The basic difficulty inhibiting sustainable development is, of course, too many people consuming too much of the world’s finite resources. In theory, a solution is for people to voluntarily restrict consumption, but indications are that, instead, many more people (e.g., in China, India, and “the Muslim world”) understandably seek to emulate “the good life” of people in the West. In the relatively near future, therefore, stresses on the world’s ecosystems are more likely to dramatically increase than decrease. Consequently, most researchers who have studied existing and future problems dealing with sustainable development have concluded that, if the problems can be solved (which is by no means certain), then during this century, it’s <a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/X05_EXamining_Interactions.pdf">urgent</a> that the world’s human population be reduced by approximately an order of magnitude and then stabilize.<br /><br />An obvious need therefore exists for efficacious activities to promote birth control. As you undoubtedly know, however, many obstacles inhibit developing sound family-planning policies. Given the irrational but powerful influences of religious groups (especially Catholic and most Muslim clerics), most governments are unable to undertake the needed actions. In addition, few philanthropic organizations seem willing to endure the passions with which such policies are attacked (by clerics, their followers, and others). Nonetheless, I urge you to consider ways to stimulate humane methods for decreasing the world’s population, e.g., with worldwide distribution of free birth-control devices and methods. The cost of a successful program would probably be tens of billions of dollars; the consequences will almost certainly be worth hundreds of trillions of dollars.<br /><br />In addition, though, because of objections that will be raised against promoting and assisting birth control, there is an associated critical need to undertake appropriate educational activities. To outline this educational need, perhaps it would be useful to broach the subject more broadly.<br /><br />Thus, if the goal of helping intelligence expand is to be advanced, then no doubt you agree that people’s minds must be capable of critical thought and, therefore, free of dogma. At present, however, dogma (particularly religious dogma) is rampant, especially in countries contaminated by the Catholic Church and by Islam. Therefore, a most important undertaking by enlightened philanthropic organizations is to help “the masses” in such countries to (in the words of Antisthenes) “unlearn the evil”. Their own governments of course refuse to do so (or refuse even to recognize the problem), and the U.S. government, for example, apparently finds it too “politically sensitive” to meaningfully try.<br /><br />The best way to bring the ideas of the Enlightenment to “the masses” is, of course, to use the mass media. Elsewhere (e.g., <a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/X29_EXplaining_Humanism.pdf">here</a> and <a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/X32_EXterminating_Terrorism.pdf">here</a>) I’ve provided a few ideas about how to do so; <a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/05/fitzgerald-how-to-wage-the-propaganda-war.html">Hugh Fitzgerald</a> has provided some ideas about how to try to enlighten Muslims still shrouded in Islam’s version of the Dark Ages; many more ideas should be explored – and the best of them implemented. The hardware costs of, for example, creating a resulting worldwide television network devoted to “enlightening the masses” would probably be only a few billion, but the operating costs (for producing quality programs and broadcasting them in local languages) would probably be additional billions per year.<br /><br />I hope you’ll consider adopting as top priorities the above-outlined, coupled activities. In my view they sum to a “virtuous circle of philanthropy”, consisting of improved human health from sustainable development <span style="font-style: italic;">via</span> family planning and using mass media for enlightening education. In addition, though, and with ‘value’ continuing to be measured with respect to the goal of helping intelligence to go on and to expand (or some statement with similar meaning), then many other activities would benefit from philanthropic support. Below, I’ll mention a few.<br /><br />For example, it’s understandably difficult for even the most intelligent humans to obtain financial support to study, in Donald Rumsfeld’s words, “unknown unknowns”, especially those unknowns that have the potential to terminate life on Earth. Western governments are investing in studies to eliminate the possibilities of an asteroid devastating life on Earth and of humans being eliminated by a “super bug” (both being “somewhat-known unknowns”), but imaginative studies associated with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox">Fermi paradox</a> (i.e., the question: if life is common in the universe, then why has no other life form contacted us?) deserve more financial support, as do studies that attempt to identify other “unknown unknowns”.<br /><br />One partially-known unknown (which requires substantial study and is related to both the Fermi paradox and to current social conditions) is related to the possibility of a future technological catastrophe. History has shown that every technological advance (from farming to industrial manufacturing) has led to social upheavals, including revolutions, but many more and more penetrating social and psychological studies are needed that attempt to extrapolate to consequences of widespread use of advanced artificial intelligence, artificial organs, genetic manipulation, nanotechnology, etc.<br /><br />Special studies are needed, also, to examine the consequences of deterioration of the gene pool (e.g., <span style="font-style: italic;">via</span> medical “advances”) and of the reality that workers with the least appreciation of leisure time are usually the ones who acquire most leisure from technological advances. To illustrate, I’d guess that, currently in the U.S., there are somewhere around 10 million unemployed who “don’t know what to do with themselves”, whereas I wonder if, during the past decade, you’ve had a single day when you felt you had nothing to do.<br /><br />If intelligent life is to continue and to expand, formal education is certainly critical, but whereas essentially all governments invest in such education, philanthropic activities should be targeted precisely. In the West, for example, and particularly in the U.S. (in contrast, for example, with the case of India and Pakistan), it’s questionable if any philanthropic organization should attempt to improve the quality of formal education. In general in the West, education tools and methods are adequate; in contrast, what’s seriously deficient (in an atrociously many students) is eagerness to learn.<br /><br />Psychological and sociological studies of the nature and cause of the lack of interest and ambition in western school children might usefully be funded by philanthropic organizations. Elsewhere (e.g., start <a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/X15_EXpanding_Education.pdf">here</a>) I’ve suggested some governmental actions that might someday be possible, e.g., redefining educational funding to base it on student achievement. But from personal experiences, I found that the backbreaking job of picking crops in the searing summer heat was a powerful incentive to study harder.<br /><br />In the U.S., therefore, perhaps no solution will be found until competition from other nations results in still further (and significant) deterioration in the quality of life of the majority of Americans. Yet, it would be at least interesting to determine results from a philanthropic organization’s funding the arrangement, implementation, and evaluation of summer-work programs even for elementary school children (e.g., renovating blighted urban areas), to determine if physical labor might teach youngsters some of the advantages of more eagerly pursuing their education.<br /><br />Potentially of more value would be targeted philanthropic educational activities in other countries (particularly in Central and South America, Africa, some Asian countries, and most Muslim nations). If every child in such countries could read English and had Internet access, literally thousands of future Einsteins, Gandhis, and Shakespeares would probably emerge. The costs would again be tens of billions of dollars, but again the consequences could be worth trillions. Again, however, it would be necessary to overcome entrenched religious ideas and associated power structures; therefore, the above-outlined activities to “enlighten the masses” may need to precede attempts to provide every child in the world with knowledgeable access to Internet resources. And I would add even the obvious remark that it’s especially important to improve (or in some cases, to initiate) the education of girls throughout the world, since they are the primary future bearers and healers of any culture.<br /><br />Admittedly there are many other projects that I hope would be funded by philanthropic organizations. For example, I would go so far as to say that no organization should portray itself as a lover of humanity that doesn’t devote a meaningful fraction of its resources to the arts, nature, science, mathematics, interpersonal relations, or to whatever its founders consider to be beautiful. But in spite of this letter’s shortcomings, I hope that you find some of the ideas mentioned in it to be useful, and in any case, I convey my best wishes for success in your philanthropic endeavors.<br /><br />cc. George Soros, Ted Turner<br /><br />PS.<br />By the way, I notice that, this week, a Pakistan court has ordered the blocking of many Internet sites, including www.islam-exposed.org, www.jihadwatch.org, www.skepticsannotatedbible.com, ww.middle-east-info.org, www.faithfreedom.org, www.thereligionofpeace.com, www.abrahamic-faith.com, www.muhammadlied.com, www.prophetofdoom.net, www.worldthreats.com, www.voiceofbelievers.com, and www.walidshoebat.com. I would hope that some philanthropic foundation (e.g., the Gates Foundation) would relatively quickly fund methods to circumvent and prevent such despicable blocking of paths to enlightenment.<br /><br /><a href="http://zenofzero.net/">www.zenofzero.net</a><div><br /></div>A. Zoroasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07473665017762017780noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5388644395556254721.post-18665448211848886242010-05-09T04:59:00.000-07:002010-05-09T05:07:28.743-07:00Jesus said…“if you pray, you will be condemned.”<div><br /></div>Twenty-two years ago today, on 9 May 1988, President Reagan signed Public Law 100-307. It states:<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">The President shall issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and mediation at churches, in groups, and as individuals.</blockquote>I don’t think that it’s such a bad law – provided, of course, that the people are discouraged from praying to God on all other days of the year! That is, although prayer is flagrantly immoral and terribly demeaning, I don’t expect that too much harm would be done if – not more than once per year – people demean themselves and behave immorally. It would be like a once-per-year drinking binge, whose hangover might prevent recurrence during the rest of the year.<br /><br />But Judge Barbara B. Crabb disagrees: last month, she ruled the “National-Day-of-Prayer” law to be unconstitutional. So, apparently in her opinion, even on a single day per year, people shouldn’t “turn to God in prayer…” In her judgment she <a href="http://media.journalinteractive.com/documents/prayer041510.pdf">states</a>:<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">It bears emphasizing that a conclusion that the establishment clause prohibits the government from endorsing a religious exercise is not a judgment on the value of prayer or the millions of Americans who believe in its power. No one can doubt the important role that prayer plays in the spiritual life of a believer. In the best of times, people may pray as a way of expressing joy and thanks; during times of grief, many find that prayer provides comfort. Others may pray to give praise, seek forgiveness, ask for guidance or find the truth… However, recognizing the importance of prayer to many people does not mean that the government may enact a statute in support of it, any more than the government may encourage citizens to fast during the month of Ramadan, attend a synagogue, purify themselves in a sweat lodge or practice rune magic…</blockquote>Judge Crabb makes many good points in her ruling (which, unfortunately, is being appealed). For example, in the quotation above, she raises the question about “the value of prayer.” Some might think that, in her position as a member of the judiciary, she shouldn’t address such a question, but I disagree: whereas praying attempts to corrupt natural justice, personal justice, and interpersonal justice, it would be highly appropriate for a member of the judiciary to rule on “the value of prayer”.<br /><br /><a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/J4JudgingJudges.pdf">Elsewhere</a>, I’ve already explored how prayer corrupts natural, personal, and interpersonal justice, as well as how it demeans the supplicant and is immoral. Here, therefore, I’ll present only some summary opinions of others:<br /><blockquote><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">Prayer is like a pump in an empty well, it makes lots of noise, but brings no water.</span> [Lemuel Washburn]<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">Praying is like a rocking chair – it’ll give you something to do, but it won’t get you anywhere.</span> [Gypsy Rose Lee]<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">To think that the ruler of the universe will run to my assistance and bend the laws of nature for me is the height of arrogance.</span> [Dan Barker]<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">Whatever a man prays for, he prays for a miracle. Every prayer reduces itself to this: “Great God, grant that twice two be not four.”</span> [Ivan Turgenev]<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">Prayers never bring anything… They may bring solace to the sap, the bigot, the ignorant, the aboriginal, and the lazy – but to the enlightened it is the same as asking Santa Claus to bring you something for Xmas.</span> [W.C. Fields]<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">Over the years I realized the god I prayed to was the god I invented. When I was talking to him, I was talking to myself. He had no understanding or qualities that I did not have. When I realized god was an extension of my imagination, I stopped praying to him.</span> [Howard Kreisner]<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">To pray for anything, which we can obtain by the due application of our natural powers, and neglect the means of procuring it, is impertinence and laziness in the abstract… for example, to pray for more wisdom, understanding, grace, or faith; for a more robust constitution, handsomer figure, or more of a gigantic size, would be the same as telling God that we are dissatisfied with our inferiority in the order of being; that neither our souls nor bodies suit us; that he has been too sparing of his beneficence; that we want more wisdom, and organs better fitted for show, agility, and superiority… “Whosoever lacketh wisdom,” instead of “asking it of God,” let him improve what he has… this is all the possible way of gaining in wisdom and knowledge… But it is too common for great faith and little knowledge to unite in the same person; such persons are beyond the reach of argument… The only way to procure food, raiment, or the necessaries or conveniences of life, is by natural means; we do not get them by wishing or praying for, but by actual exertion; and the only way to obtain virtue or morality is to practice and habituate ourselves to it, and not to pray to God for it… This is all the religion which reason knows or can ever approve of. </span> [Ethan Allen]<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">The first and most forthright count in the accusation against prayer is that it is infinitely degrading to the human ego. As it springs out of the ego’s profound sense of his inferior and dependent status, out of the recognition of his base and helpless nature in relation to the power prayed to, these basic assumptions in the case and the posture and habit of mind bent to conformity with them inevitably tend to strengthen and more deeply ingrain on the subconscious life of the individual so conditioned the dominant obsession of one’s lowness and unworthiness. The “prayer consciousness” thus endlessly renews and sharpens the self-infliction of a most injurious psychological trauma upon the human psyche. In the simplest form of statement prayer thus constantly beats down the human spirit. It throws over it a heavy pall of depression, of negative cast of consciousness, of self-accusation, and self-depreciation…</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">The deleterious influence of prayer reaches perhaps its climactic point of disservice in its disastrous inhibition of man’s impulse to overt action in all contingencies in which resolute action is crucial. It strikes at man’s truest interests when it persuades him to pray instead of acting. When prayer steps in to paralyze the spirit of resolute self-exertion and causes him to stand as an impotent beggar when prompt action alone will save, it is of all things most damaging… It is the contention here that the prayer habit, leading men to substitute prayer for needed action, is the cause of untold evil, wreckage, defeat, and tragedy in the run of history. Prayer puts a specious value on cowardice, or offers a tempting resort to it. And mankind suffers the consequences of its failure to act. </span>[Alvin Kuhn]</blockquote>The above quotations contain substantial wisdom. Yet, given that there are so many Christians in the U.S. who disagree with Judge Crabb’s decision, perhaps it would be more efficacious to call their attention to their Christ’s assessment of prayer as given in the <span style="font-style: italic;">Gospel of Thomas,</span> v.14:<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Jesus said… “if you pray, you will be condemned…”</blockquote>His statement might have been closer to the truth, however, if he had said: “If you pray, you condemn yourself.”<br /><br /><a href="http://zenofzero.net/">www.zenofzero.net</a><div><br /></div>A. Zoroasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07473665017762017780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5388644395556254721.post-33622431825707727002010-04-12T04:22:00.000-07:002010-04-14T04:09:44.728-07:00On Bailing Out Believers Banned from Paradise<div><br /></div>Well, I’m sorry if it’s depressing, but all believers in the Abrahamic god (i.e., all religious Jews, Christians, Muslims, Mormons, etc.) are banned from eternal life. That is, although they apparently wish otherwise, all evidence points to the inescapable conclusion that, rather than being awarded eternal life in paradise, the fate of “true believers” is the same as for the rest of us: this one life is all that anyone gets; when people die, they’re dead; “dust to dust” (<span style="font-style: italic;">Genesis 3,</span> 19). Fortunately for them, however, a way has been found to bail them out of their predicament of being banned from paradise. Below, I’ll outline first the problem and then the solution.<br /><br />The source of their problem is described in their tale about Adam and Eve. Thus, after Adam and Eve ate fruit from the Tree of Knowledge (of good and evil), that is, after they developed capabilities to make their own moral judgments, their god made it perfectly clear (<span style="font-style: italic;">Genesis 3,</span> 22–24):<br /><blockquote><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">He</span> [God] <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">said: “The man has become like one of us</span> [gods]<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">, knowing good and evil; what if he now reaches out his hand and takes fruit from the Tree of Life also, eats it, and lives for ever?” So the Lord God drove him</span> [Adam, along with Eve]<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> out of the Garden of Eden to till the ground from which he had been taken. He cast him out, and to the east of the Garden of Eden he stationed the cherubim and a sword whirling and flashing to guard the way to the Tree of Life.</span></blockquote>So, not only are believers in the Abrahamic god banned from eternal life in paradise, their god even established a security patrol, “the cherubim”, with “a sword whirling and flashing”, to prevent their attempts to thwart his ban.<br /><br />For reasonable people, that’s the end of the dream of eternal life in paradise: this life is all we get; so, let’s make the best of it. Clerics saw, however, that many people (maybe most people) weren’t reasonable: they still sought eternal life in paradise, even though their god expressly prohibited it. Thereby, clerics of various persuasions saw potentials for lucrative con games – substantially compounding problems for “true believers”.<br /><br />For example, Jewish clerics (following examples set by earlier Egyptian, Persian, and Indian priests) were the first in the Abrahamic religions to concoct a scheme to leech off the people, in spite of the clear communication from their god (or from earlier Jewish clerics) that the people had developed their own sense of morality and, therefore, the people had no need for any “moral commandments” (either from any god or any cleric). Yet, relying on the premiss that many (most?) people are unreasonable, the Jewish clerics concocted a host of “commandments” claiming that the commandments were direct from their god! But that’s silly: according to the above quotation from <span style="font-style: italic;">Genesis 3, </span>22–24, their god already recognized that humans had “become like one of us, knowing good and evil.” What craziness, then, for the clerics to claim that humans needed clerical help in defining morality – morality which just happened to include the requirement that the people were to pay the clerics for running their con game.<br /><br />Next came the Christian clerics. Thus, seeing and no doubt envying the success of the Jewish clerics’ con game, Christian clerics decided to try to cash in on the people’s gullibility. In reality, though, the Christian clerics at first encountered substantial difficulties, because the Jewish clerics had already set prices (collection fees) on almost every “sin” imaginable: in total, there are (I think) 613 “commandments” in the Old Testament! Eventually, however, an insane fellow named Saul (later called “Saint” Paul) identified a new “sin”, allegedly committed by everyone and therefore a real money maker: “original sin”. According to “Saint” Paul’s crazy scheme:<br /><blockquote>1) The Abrahamic god either lied or changed his mind (even though he expressly stated that he never does either, e.g., see <span style="font-style: italic;">Numbers 23,</span> 19; <span style="font-style: italic;">1 Samuel 15,</span> 29; <span style="font-style: italic;">Psalm 110,</span> 4; <span style="font-style: italic;">Hebrews 7,</span> 21);<br /><br />2) Their god’s revised plan (according to Paul) was to kill his innocent son, Jesus, to atone for the sin of all humans (a sin allegedly derived simply from our being the progeny of Adam and Eve, who disobeyed their god and ate fruit from the Tree of Knowledge); and<br /><br />3) Simultaneously, thereby, the Christian clerics claim that their god has no conception of justice (since they claim that he would sacrifice the innocent Jesus for the sins of the guilty, would punish innocent children for the alleged sins of their ancestors, and would judge Adam and Eve as guilty of disobeying his order when, before they gained knowledge of good and evil, it was impossible for them to know it was “good” to obey his order). </blockquote>Now, admittedly, the above-outlined Christian scheme may seem bizarre. Consequently, to provide evidence that I’m not fabricating it, what follows is Paul’s own description of his scheme, starting in the New Testament at <span style="font-style: italic;">Romans 5,</span> 12 [and to which I’ve added some notes in brackets].<br /><blockquote><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Mark what follows</span> [says Paul, and I’ll add: for it’s the mark of a man gone mad]<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">. It was through one man <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">[Adam, of Adam and Eve fame]</span> that sin entered the world</span> [Riiiiiiight]<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">, and through sin, death</span> [Thus, in Paul’s deranged mind, death is not the natural course of all life, for the benefit of genetic survival (that is, through experience, DNA molecules found it to be efficacious to use only temporary hosts, with finite lifetimes, thereby providing more opportunities to adapt to changing environmental and biological conditions); instead, according to Paul, death is a punishment for sin]<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">, and thus death pervaded the whole human race, inasmuch as all men have sinned</span> [and inasmuch as possibly no one, in the history of the world, has ever promoted such a stupid idea. How could Paul not have noticed that plants and animals also die? Or did he think that they “sinned” too? Every little bunny rabbit is a sinner? Daffodils sin?]<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">For sin was already in the world before there was law</span> [viz., the Law of Moses – but, what a stupid statement! On the one hand, the “law” of causality was in existence, as were “laws” to promote the survival of each species’ genes, long before humans came on the scene, and on the other hand, how could anyone possibly break a law (i.e., “sinned”) if the law didn’t exist?!]<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">, though in the absence of law no reckoning is kept of sin.</span> [Well, then, if it’s not “reckoned”, how is sin described? Further, in the absence of the “law” of causality, all is chaos!]<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">But death held sway from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned as Adam did, by disobeying a direct command.</span> [So, “the good” is to obey! – even though Adam didn’t know what ‘good’ meant!! Thus, even if people were so naïve as to buy into the silly story about Adam and Eve (fabricated thousands of years before Paul by people who were even more naïve), surely they could see that Adam didn’t sin, because he wasn’t permitted to know the difference between right and wrong. Therefore, Adam couldn’t know that it was ‘right’ to obey and ‘wrong’ to disobey! God might as well have told two bunny rabbits not to eat clover and not to have sex. For Paul (or God) to then claim that the bunny rabbits ‘sinned’ (because they ate clover and had sex) is crazy!]<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"><br /><br />But God’s act of grace is out of all proportion to Adam’s wrongdoing</span> [I should certainly hope so, because Adam did nothing wrong!]<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">. For if the wrongdoing of that one man brought death upon so many</span> [It didn’t! How could anyone be so stupid as to claim that all people die because Adam ate an apple!]<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">, its effect</span> [i.e., I guess, the effect of his “wrongdoing”] <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">is vastly exceeded by the grace of God and the gift that came to so many by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ. </span> [That is, God had Jesus killed to “atone” for Adam’s having eaten the apple! But how about, instead, if God had first told poor old Adam how to distinguish right from wrong and that he was supposed to obey?!]<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">And again, the gift of God </span>[viz., eternal life]<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> is not to be compared in its effect with that one man’s</span> [viz., Adam’s] <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">sin; for the judicial action, following upon the one offence, issued in a verdict of condemnation </span>[Paul always wanted to be a lawyer, doncha know!]<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">, but the act of grace, following upon so many misdeeds</span> [hello?]<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">, issued in a verdict of acquittal.</span> [A lawyer gone mad!] <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> For if by the wrong doing of that one man</span> [Adam] <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">death established its reign</span> [it didn’t]<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">, through a single sinner, much more shall these who receive in far greater measure God’s grace, and his gift of righteousness, live and reign</span> [in?] <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">the one man, Jesus Christ. </span> [Here’s a guy, Paul, fascinated by Roman law and perplexed by the question: “Why did Jesus die?” So, he invented a story – which is totally bizarre!]<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">It follows, then</span> [in the twisted legal mind of “Saint” Paul, because for sane people, nothing could follow from this craziness – except, one would hope, incarceration of Paul in an institute for the insane!]<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">, that as the issue of one misdeed was condemnation for all men </span>[in Paul’s astoundingly warped sense of justice! Can anyone with a functioning brain believe this crap? My great, great, great… grandfather ate an apple, so I’m guilty (and so is everyone else) and my sentence is the death penalty! What better word than ‘bonkers’?!]<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">, so the issue of one just act is acquittal and life for all men.</span> [What sort of justice is this? Supposing, just for the sake of argument, that Paul’s insane ideas aren’t crazy; then how, pray tell, is it “just” to kill a totally innocent person, Jesus, for the “sins” of the “guilty”?!]<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">. For as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners</span> [That is, everyone’s a sinner, and subject to “the death penalty”, because Adam ate an apple!]<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">, so through the obedience of the one man</span> [Jesus: obedient because he let his father kill him!] <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">the many will be made righteous.</span> [Thus, the only way that Paul saw to get out of his craziness was to double it!!]<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Law intruded into this process to multiply law-breaking</span> [that is, I guess, the Law of Moses introduced more ways to sin – as if the purpose of laws is to break them!]<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">. But where sin was thus multiplied, grace immeasurably exceeded it</span> [so it was “grace” for Jesus to let his father kill him!!]<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">, in order that, as sin established its reign by way of death, so God’s grace</span> [viz., killing his son]<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> might establish its reign in righteousness, and issue in eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.</span></blockquote>Christian clerics then claimed that if people would just believe Paul’s craziness (and the associated inconsistencies, injustices, and immoralities of their god), then the people would be permitted to live forever in paradise (even though it was expressly against their god’s will) – provided, of course, that the people pay the new breed of Christian clerics for running their new con game<br /><br />Subsequently, Muslim clerics decided to concoct their own con game. Perhaps they were perplexed by the complexity of the Jewish clerics’ scheme and were intrigued by the Christian clerics’ application of the principle, “less is more.” I suspect, however, that the Muslim clerics were most impressed by the power, prestige, and profit that could be gained from the people's gullibility. In any event, the Muslim clerics concocted a still-simpler con, claiming that their god didn’t forbid Adam and Eve to learn about morality (by eating from the Tree of Knowledge) but instead said (<span style="font-style: italic;">Koran 7,</span> 19):<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">O Adam! Dwell you and your wife in the garden; so eat from where you desire, but do not go near this tree, for then you will be of the unjust.</blockquote>According to my dictionary, ‘unjust’ means “not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.” The Muslim clerics then claimed (and still claim) that by eating the fruit of the tree, Adam and Eve immediately became immoral:<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">…so when they tasted of the tree, their evil inclinations became manifest to them, and they both began to cover themselves with the leaves of the garden.</blockquote>But that’s crazy! If Adam and Eve didn’t realize what was ‘evil’ until they “<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">tasted of the tree</span>” (i.e., if it was only after they ate fruit from the Tree of Knowledge that “<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">evil inclinations became manifest to them</span>”), then necessarily, prior to eating the fruit, they couldn’t have known what was ‘good’: it’s impossible to distinguish anything if no contrast is available! Consequently, Adam and Eve couldn’t have known that it was ‘good’ to do what their god said (and ‘evil’ to do otherwise), because without their knowing ‘evil’, it was impossible for them to know what was ‘good’. It then follows, logically, that their god is either unjust (punishing people without first letting them know the difference between ‘good’ and ‘evil’) or their god doesn’t exist.<br /><br />But like all clerics before them, Muslim clerics counted on people being illogical. As a result and continuing to develop their con game, they promoted even more illogic and new ‘evils’ as ‘good’! Thus, they promoted (even demanded, under penalty of death): 1) That people believe that the clerics’ god existed (in spite of zero evidence to support the claim), 2) That people believe that their god was just (in spite of obvious evidence to the contrary), and 3) That people abandon their own judgments, replacing them with the clerics’ judgments – which just happened to include the judgment that the Muslim clerics should be paid plenty for running their con game!<br /><br />As a result of such skullduggery by clerics of the Abrahamic religions, believers (in such nonsense) have been trapped in some truly “unholy” conundrums and irreverent predicaments. For example, the clerics permitted (in fact, even encouraged) their followers to believe that they could achieve eternal life in paradise (in spite of their god’s expressed ruling to the contrary), but by seeking such, the people violated their god’s expressed will! Thereby, followers of the Abrahamic clerics were (and still are) trapped in a terrible predicament: by opposing his ruling on their fate (“dust to dust”), they thereby break the first and claimed-to-be the most important of their god’s alleged commandments, i.e., to love and obey him. If they really did believe that their god exists, one would think that “true believers” would change their ways: they should immediately stop believing that they have any opportunity for eternal life in paradise, for fear of invoking their god’s wrath for their irreverence toward him!<br /><br />Fortunately, help is available to bail out believers banned from paradise. All they need to is to return to the state that their ancestors allegedly achieved during their previous tenure in paradise, i.e., the ability to make their own moral judgments.<br /><br />For those who wish to change their ways but are worried that they may no longer have the ability to define morality by themselves, I’d encourage them not to worry: it’s all rather obvious. For example, the <a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/J2JusticeandMorality.pdf">highest personal morality</a> is just to always use your brain as best you can; in a word, Evaluate! In other words, trust your own judgment; in more words, hold beliefs only as strongly as relevant evidence warrants.<br /><br />As for interpersonal morality, many people have analyzed the problem and provided succinct summaries. A few illustrations, most with links to where further descriptions are available, are the following.<br /><blockquote>• Remember that, “what goes around, comes around.”<br /><br />• “<a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/Love_within_Limits.pdf">Love one another – within limits</a>”, e.g., sometimes it’s necessary to do onto others, before they do it unto you!<br /><br />• “<a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/KindnesswithKeenness.pdf">Be kind – but with keenness</a>”, e.g., sometimes it’s kindest to be cruel.<br /><br />• Recognize that, <a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/J3InterpersonalJandM.pdf">everyone has an equal right to claim one’s own existence</a>.<br /><br />• “<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dce8mE0q4zA&feature=related">You ought to do what you would most want to do if you were reasoning correctly and aware of all the facts.</a>” [Richard Carrier, <span style="font-style: italic;">Sense & Goodness Without God.</span>]<br /><br />• “<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/11393708/An-Atheists-Values-1964-by-Richard-Robinson-19021996">Any kind of thing is bad if it, or the pursuit of it, increases the misery of living things upon the whole… Anything is good if the pursuit of it pleases somebody and does not increase misery…</a>" [Richard Robinson, <span style="font-style: italic;">An Atheist’s Value (1964)</span>.]</blockquote>Moreover, as the Oxford philosopher Richard Robinson (1902–1996) also described in his 1964 book <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/11393708/An-Atheists-Values-1964-by-Richard-Robinson-19021996"><span style="font-style: italic;">An Atheist’s Values</span></a>, humans esteem more than just our moral values. For example, we have practical desires for truth (or reliable knowledge) and aesthetic desires for beauty, and we have learned that it’s moral to pursue them (since, on the whole, they decrease misery and increase pleasure):<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">There is a great good for which the best one-word name is ‘Truth’ or ‘Knowledge’… The contemplation of Beauty, and especially the Beauty of nature, is an immense solace and joy, calming and cheering. It is shareable by all…</blockquote>The morality of pursuing truth or knowledge, and the importance of holding our beliefs only as strongly as relevant evidence warrants, were described well in the 1879 essay <a href="http://ajburger.homestead.com/files/book.htm"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Ethics of Belief </span></a> by the mathematical physicist William Kingdon Clifford (1845–1879, who introduced the idea that energy and matter are different types of curvature of space, an idea developed about 30 years later by Einstein in his General Theory of Relativity):<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);">Belief, that sacred faculty which prompts the decisions of our will, and knits into harmonious working all the compacted energies of our being, is ours not for ourselves, but for humanity. It is rightly used on truths which have been established by long experience and waiting toil, and which have stood in the fierce light of free and fearless questioning. Then, it helps to bind men together and to strengthen and direct their common action. It is desecrated when given to unproved and unquestioned statements, for the solace and private pleasure of the believer; to add a tinsel splendor to the plain straight road of our life and display a bright mirage beyond it; or even to drown the common sorrows of our kind by a self-deception which allows them not only to cast down, but also to degrade us. Whoso would deserve well of his fellows in this matter will guard the purity of his belief with a very fanaticism of jealous care, lest at any time it should rest on an unworthy object, and catch a stain which can never be wiped away…<br /><br />Every time we let ourselves believe for unworthy reasons, we weaken our powers of self-control, of doubting, of judicially and fairly weighing evidence. We all suffer severely enough from the maintenance and support of false beliefs and the fatally wrong actions which they lead to, and the evil born when one such belief is entertained is great and wide. But a greater and wider evil arises when the credulous character is maintained and supported, when a habit of believing for unworthy reasons is fostered and made permanent.<br /><br />If I steal money from any person, there may be no harm done by the mere transfer of possession; he may not feel the loss, or it may prevent him from using the money badly. But I cannot help doing this great wrong towards Man, that I make myself dishonest. What hurts society is not that it should lose its property, but that it should become a den of thieves; for then it must cease to be society. This is why we ought not to do evil that good may come; for at any rate this great evil has come, that we have done evil and are made wicked thereby.<br /><br />In like manner, if I let myself believe anything on insufficient evidence, there may be no great harm done by the mere belief; it may be true after all, or I may never have occasion to exhibit it in outward acts. But I cannot help doing this great wrong towards Man, that I make myself credulous. The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things, though that is great enough; but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them; for then it must sink back into savagery.<br /><br />The harm which is done by credulity in a man is not confined to the fostering of a credulous character in others, and consequent support of false beliefs. Habitual want of care about what I believe leads to habitual want of care in others about the truth of what is told to me. Men speak the truth to one another when each reveres the truth in his own mind and in the other’s mind; but how shall my friend revere the truth in my mind when I myself am careless about it, when I believe things because I want to believe them, and because they are comforting and pleasant? Will he not learn to cry, “Peace,” to me, when there is no peace? By such a course I shall surround myself with a thick atmosphere of falsehood and fraud, and in that I must live. It may matter little to me, in my cloud-castle of sweet illusions and darling lies; but it matters much to Man that I have made my neighbors ready to deceive. The credulous man is father to the liar and the cheat; he lives in the bosom of this his family, and it is no marvel if he should become even as they are. So closely are our duties knit together, that whoso shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all…<br /><br />If a man, holding a belief which he was taught in childhood or persuaded of afterwards, keeps down and pushes away any doubts which arise about it in his mind, purposely avoids the reading of books and the company of men that call in question or discuss it, and regards as impious those questions which cannot easily be asked without disturbing it – the life of that man is one long sin against mankind…<br /><br />To sum up:<br /><br />• We may believe what goes beyond our experience, only when it is inferred from that experience by the assumption that what we do not know is like what we know.<br /><br />• We may believe the statement of another person, when there is reasonable ground for supposing that he knows the matter of which he speaks, and that he is speaking the truth so far as he knows it.<br /><br />• It is wrong in all cases to believe on insufficient evidence; and where it is presumption to doubt and to investigate, there it is worse than presumption to believe.</blockquote>Consistent with Clifford’s evaluation, Robinson’s <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/11393708/An-Atheists-Values-1964-by-Richard-Robinson-19021996">summary</a> is also penetrating:<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">Religion is more of an evil than a good because it is gravely inimical to truth and reason… [Religious] Faith is a great vice, an example of obstinately refusing to listen to reason, something irrational and undesirable, a form of self-hypnotism… It follows that, far from its being wicked to undermine [religious] faith, it is a duty to do so. We ought to do what we can towards eradicating the evil habit of believing without regard to evidence…</blockquote>In sum, then, religious people who have bought into clerical con games are engaged in horrible immoralities, including:<br /><blockquote>• The immorality to believe in the existence of any god (in the absence of any evidence),<br /><br />• The immorality of believing that their alleged god is moral or just (when the evidence presented in their own “holy books” strongly suggests otherwise), and<br /><br />• The immorality of yielding their own judgments (e.g., about morality) to anyone – and especially to any group of blatantly immoral, con-artist clerics. </blockquote>Yet, although believers in the Abrahamic god have been highly immoral, hope for them is still available. To extricate themselves from their clerics’ con games, a first useful step might be for them to see that their imagined god is immoral, perhaps necessarily so. Thus, as <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/11393708/An-Atheists-Values-1964-by-Richard-Robinson-19021996">Robinson</a> points out:<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">There may be another harmful aspect to the capture of morality by religion. It may be that the gods are inevitably immoral, that is, that any god that ever has been or will be conceived acts immorally in some ways. We can, of course, all easily see that other people’s gods are immoral. Zeus behaved immorally; so did Moloch; and so on. I suggest that you will find that your own god is immoral too, if you can bring yourself to apply to him the moral standards that you apply to men. Surely it is immoral to condemn people to everlasting fire, or to blame them for the sins of their ancestors. Surely it is immoral to be omnipotent and yet allow the vast and continuing miseries of living things, or to demand that people believe without regard to evidence. All such conventional phrases as “God’s ways are inscrutable” are in use partly because they help to prevent us from seeing the immorality of the god we have conceived.<br /><br />Now it seems likely that this immorality of all the gods so far invented is not an accident, but a necessary consequence of the religious impulse. It is probably connected with the element of worship in religion. One cannot abase oneself before a perfectly moral person, because a perfectly moral person treats one as an equal and as having a right to one’s way of life.</blockquote>But beyond recognizing the likelihood that gods are necessarily immoral, people who seek to break free from their childhood indoctrination in the god idea will need to develop the courage to be honest with themselves, and thereby, acquire nobility. To help them find such courage and honesty, Robinson relays still more (in the conclusion of his <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/11393708/An-Atheists-Values-1964-by-Richard-Robinson-19021996">book</a>), even showing theists the way to arrive at a real paradise:<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">Cheerfulness is part of courage, and courage is an essential part of the right attitude. Let us not tell ourselves a comforting tale of a father in heaven because we are afraid to be alone, but bravely and cheerfully face whatever appears to be the truth.<br /><br />The theist sometimes rebukes the pleasure-seeker by saying: “We were not put here to enjoy ourselves; man has a sterner and nobler purpose than that.” The atheist’s conception of man is, however, still sterner and nobler than that of the theist. According to the theist we were put here by an all-powerful and all-benevolent god who will give us eternal victory and happiness if we only obey him. According to the atheist our situation is far sterner than that. There is no one to look after us but ourselves, and we shall certainly be defeated.<br /><br />As our situation is far sterner than the theist dares to think, so our possible attitude towards it is far nobler than he conceives. When we contemplate the friendless position of man in the universe (as it is right sometimes to do), our attitude should be the tragic poet’s affirmation of man’s ideals of behavior. Our dignity, and our finest occupation, is to assert and maintain our own self-chosen goods as long as we can, those great goods of beauty and truth and virtue. And among the virtues it is proper to mention in this connection above all the virtues of courage and love.<br /><br />There is no person in this universe to love us except ourselves; therefore let us love one another. The human race is alone; but individual men need not be alone, because we have each other. We are brothers without a father; let us all the more for that behave brotherly to each other. The finest achievement for humanity is to recognize our predicament, including our insecurity and our coming extinction, and to maintain our cheerfulness and love and decency in spite of it, to prosecute our ideals in spite of it. We have good things to contemplate and high things to do. Let us do them.</blockquote><div>As well, as Edward Fitzgerald (1809–83) wrote in his version of the <i>Rubaiyat</i> by the great Persian mathematician, astronomer, and poet Omar Khayyam (1048–1131):</div><div></div><blockquote><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">A Book of Verses underneath the Bough,</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">A Jug of Wine, a Loaf of Bread – and Thou</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">Beside me singing in the Wilderness –</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">O, Wilderness were Paradise enow!</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">Some for the Glories of This World; and some</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">Sigh for the Prophet's Paradise to come;</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">Ah, take the Cash, and let the Credit go,</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">Nor heed the rumble of a distant Drum!</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">…</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">Ah, make the most of what we yet may spend,</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">Before we too into the Dust descend;</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">Dust unto Dust, and under Dust to lie,</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">Sans Wine, sans Song, sans Singer, and – sans End!</span></div></blockquote><a href="http://zenofzero.net/">www.zenofzero.net</a><div><br /></div>A. Zoroasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07473665017762017780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5388644395556254721.post-51467747282049168902010-03-12T07:30:00.000-08:002010-03-12T09:32:50.310-08:00One Nation, Divided by God, With Liberty and Justice for the Majority<div><br /></div>For those who for years have followed Michael Newdow’s heroic attempts to bring some legal relief to America’s atheists, fighting against the ignorance and arrogance of America’s religious majority, and for those who were stunned by the duplicity and obfuscation of the majority (two-to-one) opinion in yesterday’s ruling by the Ninth Circuit Appellate Court, there’s something to cheer, namely, the minority opinion written by Judge Stephen Roy Reinhardt. It’s <a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/03/11/05-17257.pdf">here</a>, starting on p. 3930. His dissenting opinion is long (136 pages; two-thirds of the entire, 201-page report!), but it’s brilliant. Illustrative is his following introductory statement:<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><blockquote style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);"><span style="font-weight: bold;">I. The Majority’s Fundamental Errors</span><br /><br />A reader of the majority opinion, if unfamiliar with the facts of this case and the law that intermediate courts are bound to apply to those facts, would be left with a number of misconceptions about both. It might be helpful to identify the most fundamental of those misconceptions at the outset, prior to engaging in the more detailed examination of the facts and the law that follows. Although the majority’s reasoning is far from clear, its conclusion that the state-directed, teacher-led, daily recitation of the “under God” version of the Pledge in public schools complies with the Establishment Clause appears to result from at least seven major errors in its legal analysis.<br /><br />First, this case involves only the phrase “under God” as recited by young children as part of a state-directed, teacher-led, daily program in public schools. Only those two words are at issue. The plaintiffs in this case do not ask us to “strike down the Pledge” or to prohibit its recitation, as the majority claims. Rather, they ask only that the two words be stricken and that the state-directed, teacher-led, daily recitation return to the original, purely secular Pledge of Allegiance that schoolchildren had recited long before Congress enacted it into law in 1942, and long before Congress added the religious phrase at issue here by statutory amendment in 1954.<br /><br />Second, the majority asserts that “under God” as that term appears in the amendment to the Pledge is not a religious phrase, and was not inserted in the Pledge for a religious purpose. Instead, the majority argues that “under God” is simply “a reference to the historical and political underpinnings of our nation,” that its purpose is to remind us that ours is a “limited government” and, thus, that the term as adopted by Congress has a predominantly secular meaning and purpose. There is simply no basis in fact or law for so absurd an assertion. If the plain meaning of the words “under God” were not enough to demonstrate beyond any doubt that the majority’s contention borders on the irrational, and that the term is predominantly, if not entirely, religious in both meaning and purpose, the overwhelmingly religious intent of the legislators who added the phrase to the Pledge, as shown by the unanimous statements to that effect in the Congressional Record, would remove any possible doubt from the mind of any objective person.<br /><br />Third, the majority states that in order to determine the constitutionality of the amendment adding the phrase “under God” to the Pledge, we must examine the Pledge as a whole and not the amendment. Well-established controlling Supreme Court law is squarely to the contrary. See <span style="font-style: italic;">Wallace v. Jaffree, </span>472 U.S. 38 (1985). Wallace makes it clear, beyond dispute, that it is the amendment and its language, not the Pledge in its entirety, that courts must examine when, as here, it is the amendment, not the Pledge as a whole, that is the subject of the claim of unconstitutionality. The majority’s error in this respect causes it to analyze the legal issues improperly throughout its opinion. Examining the wrong issue inevitably leads the majority to reach the wrong result.<br /><br />Fourth, the amendment to the Pledge that added the phrase “under God” was, contrary to the majority’s contention, adopted in 1954, not in 2002. Congress’s reaffirmation of the “under God” amendment in response to this court’s <span style="font-style: italic;">Newdow I</span> decision is of no legal consequence. Congress could not and did not change the meaning and purpose of the 1954 amendment in 2002 and did not purport to do so. It simply proclaimed that we [The Ninth Circuit Court] were wrong in our legal ruling and that we erred in our constitutional analysis of the First Amendment issue. Although the 2002 Congress did not purport to suggest a different purpose for Congress’s 1954 action than did the earlier Congress, even had it sought to add a secular purpose, such as to remind us of our nation’s “limited government” or “historical principles of governance,” doing so would not have changed the overwhelmingly predominant religious meaning and purpose of the amendment. See <span style="font-style: italic;">McCreary County v. ACLU of Ky.</span>, 545 U.S. 844 (2005). Nor, certainly, would it have changed the effect of the amendment upon the schoolchildren who are subjected to the state-directed, teacher-led, daily recitations of the Pledge.<br /><br />Fifth, the majority suggests that the School District’s policy is constitutional because under that policy only “willing” students recite the Pledge. The majority does not and cannot make that argument explicitly, however, because it is well established that the Constitution forbids governmental coercion, and not just compulsion, of religious belief. The majority acknowledges at a later point in its opinion that public schoolchildren are “coerced to participate” in the state-directed, teacher-led recitation of the “under God” version of the Pledge, but then excuses that coercion on other grounds that are as fallacious as its initial argument.<br /><br />Sixth, the majority repeatedly asserts that under the coercion test only “religious exercises” may be deemed unconstitutional. The majority’s “religious exercise” limitation conflicts with the express holding of <span style="font-style: italic;">Lee v. Weisman,</span> 505 U.S. 577, 587 (1992), as well as the Supreme Court’s decisions in <span style="font-style: italic;">Stone v. Graham,</span> 449 U.S. 39 (1980) (per curiam), and <span style="font-style: italic;">Edwards v. Aguillard,</span> 482 U.S. 578 (1987). Coercion is prohibited with respect to participation in religious activities as well as other efforts to support or promote religion. Moreover, the majority errs in its contention that because the Pledge constitutes a patriotic rather than a religious exercise, the religious component does not fail the coercion test. A religious component included in a secular exercise, whether or not a patriotic one, is subject to the same coercion rules as is any other religious practice to which public school students are subjected. Further, the majority’s assertion that the coerced recitation of the Pledge does not require “a personal affirmation… that the speaker believes in God” is not only contradicted within the majority opinion itself, but is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s explicit statement that the Pledge “requires affirmation of a belief.” <span style="font-style: italic;">W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette,</span> 319 U.S. 624, 633 (1943). In any event, it is self-evident that one cannot profess to believe that our nation is “under God” without professing to believe that God exists.<br /><br />Seventh, the majority appears at several points in its opinion to imply that the use of the term “under God” in the Pledge may be justified by the doctrine of ceremonial deism. The theory of ceremonial deism has never been approved by the Supreme Court for use in Establishment Clause cases in general; the Court has, however, expressly disapproved the use of that doctrine to justify state-sponsored religious practices <span>in the public schools.</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> Lee,</span> 505 U.S. at 596-97. The majority’s suggestion that the doctrine may be applicable here is clearly erroneous.<br /><br />If the majority made only one or two of the seven fundamental errors described above, its conclusion that the state-directed, teacher-led, daily recitation of the “under God” version of the Pledge is constitutional could not stand. With all seven errors, the majority sets an all-time record for failure to conform to any part of any of the three tests governing compliance with the Establishment Clause. Unless and until those tests are reversed or repudiated by the Supreme Court, an appellate court is not free to disregard the law and the Constitution in the manner that the two judges in the majority have in the case before us.</blockquote>Judge Reinhardt’s conclusion stirs me to want him on the Supreme Court:<br /><blockquote><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">I end where I began. Today’s majority opinion will undoubtedly be celebrated by a large number of Americans as a repudiation of activist, liberal, Godless judging. That is its great appeal; it reaches the result favored by a substantial majority of our fellow countrymen and thereby avoids the political outcry that would follow were we to reach the constitutionally required result. Nevertheless, by reaching the result the majority does, we have failed in our constitutional duty as a court. Jan Roe and her child turned to the federal judiciary in the hope that we would vindicate their constitutional rights. There was a time when their faith in us might have been well placed. I can only hope that such a time will return someday.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">As a judge of an intermediate appellate court, I would hold that our decision is controlled by the binding Supreme Court precedents governing this case. We are required to follow those precedents regardless of what we believe the law should be or what we think that the Supreme Court may hold in the future. Were today’s majority to examine the amended Pledge as applied “through the unsentimental eye of our settled doctrine, it would have to strike it down as a clear violation of the Establishment Clause.” </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">Marsh v. Chambers, </span><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">463 U.S. 783, 796 (1983) (Brennan, J., dissenting). Following settled precedents, I conclude that the state-directed, teacher-led daily recitation in public schools of the amended “under God” version of the Pledge of Allegiance, unlike the recitation of the historic secular version, without the two added words, contravenes the rules and principles set forth in </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">Lemon v. Kurtzman, Santa Fe v. Doe,</span><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);"> and </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">Lee v. Weisman.</span> <span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">Accordingly, we are, in my view, required to hold that the amendment, as applied, violates the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. I should add that I firmly believe that the existing Supreme Court cases and doctrine reflect the true purpose and values of the Establishment Clause and of our Constitution as a whole, and that the holding that we should, but do not, reach best ensures the rights and liberties of the schoolchildren of this country. Finally, I firmly believe that any retreat from the existing Supreme Court doctrine and cases would constitute a most unfortunate diminution of the freedom of all our citizens.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">Had my views prevailed here, our decision would not preclude daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by public schoolchildren. To the contrary, public schoolchildren would be free to recite the Pledge as it stood for more than sixty years, a patriotic Pledge with which many of us grew up – a patriotic Pledge that is fully consistent with the Establishment Clause. All that would be required would be the deletion of the two words added by an amendment designed to promote religion and to indoctrinate schoolchildren with a religious belief. As has long been agreed in this nation, the teaching of religious views is the function of the family and the Church, not the State and the public school system.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">As a judge of this court, I deeply regret the majority’s decision to ignore the Pledge’s history, the clear intent and purpose of Congress in amending the Pledge, the numerous Supreme Court precedents that render the school district’s course of conduct unconstitutional as applied, and the very real constitutional injury suffered by Jan Roe and her child, and others like them throughout this nation.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">Accordingly, I dissent.</span><br /></blockquote><a href="http://zenofzero.net/">www.zenofzero.net</a><div><br /></div>A. Zoroasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07473665017762017780noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5388644395556254721.post-46742318848040227642010-02-01T04:47:00.000-08:002010-03-08T05:06:21.939-08:00God is Total Nothingness!<div><br /></div><div>A couple of days ago, I posted the following "rant" at the Richard Dawkins Forum in a <a href="http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=107841&start=0">thread</a> entitled <i>Kalam & The Nature of "Nothing".</i> Perhaps it would be useful if I repost it here, with a couple of editorial changes.</div><div><br /></div><div>******</div><div><br /></div><div>It sure can be frustrating trying to communicate with some logicians and most religionists. Sometimes I want to grab them by their linguistic lapels and shake them until they beg for mercy: "Stop, please, I promise that, never again, will I get hung-up on words."</div><div><br /></div><div>Karl Popper said it well:</div><div><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">In science, we take care that the statements we make should never depend upon the meaning of our terms. Even where the terms are defined, we never try to derive any information from the definition, or to base any argument upon it. This is why our terms make so little trouble. We do not overburden them. We try to attach to them as little weight as possible. We do not take their “meaning” too seriously. We are always conscious that our terms are a little vague (since we have learnt to use them only in practical applications) and we reach precision not by reducing their penumbra of vagueness, but rather by keeping well within it, by carefully phrasing our sentences in such a way that the possible shades of meaning do not matter. This is how we avoid quarrelling about words… Our “scientific knowledge”, in the sense in which this term may be properly used, remains entirely unaffected if we eliminate all definitions; the only effect is upon our language, which would lose, not precision, but merely brevity…</span></blockquote></div><div>A case in point is the hang-up, illustrated in this thread, with words such as "nothing' and "existence'. How many times, I wonder, must we suffer through such word games as "nothing can't exist" and "something can't come from nothing".</div><div><br /></div><div>Maybe the points listed below will help eliminate some of the useless scholasticism. <a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/Awareness.pdf">Elsewhere</a> I provide more details.</div><div><br /></div><div>1. Evidence suggests that 'existence' isn't a scalar, with normalized values usually taken as 1 (a representative for 'something') and 0 (for 'nothing'). Instead, 'existence' appears to be at least a vector (with normalized values of at least 1, 0, and -1). To describe spin, however, 'existence' would seem to need to be at least a second-order tensor, and to describe electrical charge, color charge, charm, etc., then the order of the existence tensor would seem to need to be still higher.</div><div><br /></div><div>2. If for simplicity 'existence' is considered to be only a vector (i.e., a first-order tensor), then it's easy to see how something can come into existence from nothing: 0 = 1 - 1 (i.e., 'nothing' can be separated into identical positive and negative 'somethings').</div><div><br /></div><div>3. That seems to be how our universe came into existence: "the original nothingness" split into equal and opposite amounts of energy (with most of the positive energy having subsequently condensed into mass and with the negative energy remaining as what we call 'space' or "the vacuum").</div><div><br /></div><div>4. Yet, in our universe, in total, almost certainly there's still nothing: the total electric charge is almost certainly zero (from the first principle of electrostatics), the total momentum is almost certainly zero (from the second principle of mechanics), and the total energy is almost certainly zero (from the first principle of thermodynamics). [I would be glad to discuss the possibility that the total entropy is also zero, but only with Ph.D. physicists who are willing to entertain the possibility (as suggested by Feynman and John Cramer) that, in space, time goes in the negative direction (in the sense of hosting retarded waves), because I'd like to learn knowledgeable opinions about the possibility that the entropy of space is negative (and increasingly so, as our universe expands).]</div><div><br /></div><div>5. Therefore, it appears to be incorrect that "something can't come from nothing." Also, it appears to be necessary to correctly interpret "nothing can come from nothing." Thus, our universe (i.e., nothing) apparently did come from nothing (the "original total nothingness") – and similarly, other 'verses' (other nothings), i.e., multiverses, have probably come from the same "original total nothingness".</div><div><br /></div><div>6. But then, of course, there's the obvious and intriguing question: What is "the original total nothingness"? In response, there seems to be a hint: space is brim full with negative energy, and if a hole appears in space, it's called an antiparticle. So, if you look into a hole in space (i.e., at an antiparticle), then you've got a "peep hole" through which to look at "total nothingness".</div><div><br /></div><div>7. For those who don't like the term "total nothingness", fine: call it something else. How about "the quintessence" or how about "split-been soup"? It doesn't matter what words are used. What's important is that it seems to be quantum mechanical (since antiparticles are); therefore, it seems likely that the split-been soup fluctuates (and apparently can have unstable fluctuations, creating verses such as our own).</div><div><br /></div><div>8. So, how might our universe have been formed? Well, to try to describe that, we need some new expressions to mean "before the Big Bang" (since time has no meaning without energy) and "outside our universe" (since location has no meaning without momentum). How about using phrases such as "for-be the Big Bang", "at-side our universe", and so on? Then, discussions with logicians and religionists about how our universe might have formed could be more productive.</div><div><br /></div><div>9. Thus, in the beg-nining, for-be the Big Bang, there was split-been soup, eve-dair. Soured by inactivity, it started to bubble or fluctuate. Still nothing significant happened, however (still stuck at zero), until one of the 10^10^10…-or-so bubbles (apparently a fluctuation in what we call 'energy') misfired, breaking a symmetry. With that, all hell broke lose (i.e., "inflation" or the Big Bang), splitting the split-been soup into two "beings", i.e., into positive and negative tensor existence states. Thereby, with positive energy available, time began. Subsequently, the negative energy remained as space (or "the vacuum") and some of the positive energy condensed into matter, which in time evolved – eventually leading to humans.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>10. And thus, as should be clear to all humans (even to logicians and religionists), God is soured, bubbling, occasionally misfiring, split-been soup at-side our universe, eve-dair – or in other words, total nothingness.</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://zenofzero.net/">www.zenofzero.net</a></div><div><br /></div>A. Zoroasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07473665017762017780noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5388644395556254721.post-21300829325398124402010-01-11T06:18:00.000-08:002010-01-11T09:55:49.757-08:00On Reducing the Rancor<div><br /></div>The rancor between theists and atheists might be reduced if, rather than emphasizing their differences, commonalities were stressed. Usually, however, differences are emphasized.<br /><br />Such differences are already apparent in the usual definitions. Thus,<br /><blockquote>• A theist is a person who believes in the existence of some god, with the word ‘theist’ derived from the Greek word <span style="font-style: italic;">theos</span> meaning ‘god’,<br /><br />• An atheist is one who has concluded that there is insufficient evidence to justify a belief in god, with the word ‘atheist’ derived by negating the word ‘theist’ with the Greek prefix <span style="font-style: italic;">a-</span> , and<br /><br />• An agnostic is one who maintains that he doesn’t know (e.g., about the existence of any god), with the word ‘agnostic’ (viz., ‘unknown’) derived by negating (again with the Greek prefix <span style="font-style: italic;">a-</span> ) the Greek word for ‘known’ (<span style="font-style: italic;">gnōstos</span>). </blockquote>Meanwhile, an obvious commonality among theists, agnostics, and atheists is apparent by focusing on the concept of ‘belief’.<br /><br />One way to express belief – in fact, the way to express belief precisely – is to express it as a probability. For example, you might say that you ‘believe’ that the Sun will rise tomorrow, or you might say something similar to: “My estimate is that there’s a 99.999999% chance that the Sun will rise tomorrow” (or whatever numerical value you might assign to the probability that the Sun will rise tomorrow). Similarly, a theist might say, “I think that there’s a 99.999999% chance that God exists”, whereas an atheist might respond, “Well, I think that there’s only a 0.000001% chance that God exists.”<br /><br />A commonality among theists and atheists is then apparent: by whatever means they’ve used, both have reached some opinion about the probability of some god’s existence. Such opinions are held more-or-less strongly, depending on each person’s experiences.<br /><br />Among different individuals, there’s normally quite a large variation in such probability estimates. For example, a particular theist might hold that there’s a 90% chance that some god exists – while simultaneously leaving a 10% chance that the god doesn’t exist (since the sum of the probabilities for two mutually exclusive possibility must sum to unity or 100%). Similarly, a particular atheist might maintain that there’s only a 10% chance that some god exists – while, for the same reason, simultaneously leaving a 90% chance that the god doesn’t exist.<br /><br />In general, an atheist is one who has concluded that the probability that some god exists is in the range from just over 0% to just under 50%, while a theist is one who has concluded that the probability that the god exists is in the range from just over 50% to just under 100%.<br /><br />The specific value of 50% (for the chance that some god exists) is claimed by the agnostic. That is, an agnostic claims no knowledge of whether some god exists or doesn’t exist, and therefore, just as when one doesn’t know whether the toss of a fair coin will yield ‘heads’ or ‘tails’, specifying a probability of 50% (or odds of 50-50) is equivalent to saying: “I don’t know.”<br /><br />Meanwhile, the values of exactly 0% and exactly 100% must be excluded because of the nature of reality. That is, no realistic atheist will say that there’s exactly zero chance of any god existing and no realistic theist will say that there’s exactly a 100% chance of any god existing, because, in reality, we can’t be certain of anything: for all we know, none of us may exist; we all may be just simulations in some humongous computer game!<br /><br />Stated differently, certainty is available only in closed systems (e.g., games), whereas in reality, we all must live with uncertainty. For example, in the game of poker, you can be certain that a flush beats a straight, but in life, you’ll never know all the cards that you’ll be dealt.<br /><br />I then wonder if the rancor between theists and atheists could be reduced if all would see that their differences are just a matter of degree. Again, atheists have concluded that the probability that some god exists is in the range from just over 0% to just under 50%, agnostics choose the value of 50%, and theists have concluded that the probability is somewhere between just more than 50% to just under 100%. Consequently, fundamentally, the differences are derived from different estimates for a particular probability.<br /><br />Maybe the rancor would be reduced if, rather than people proclaiming and promoting their estimates for the probability of any god’s existence, we’d all focus on explaining to those who are interested how we reached our individual estimates. Maybe, if we all work at it, we would conclude that all such estimates are approximate and should be flexible. As a minimum, surely we can all agree that those who advocate or engage in the killing of people whose estimates for such probabilities differ from theirs thereby commit a crime against humanity and should be constrained.<br /><br /><a href="http://zenofzero.net/">www.zenofzero.net</a><div><br /></div>A. Zoroasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07473665017762017780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5388644395556254721.post-58957042430618813892009-12-23T04:49:00.000-08:002009-12-27T03:39:28.078-08:00On Voting Tests<div><br /></div>What I advocate, here, is this: Whereas (for obvious reasons) people are required to demonstrate competence in driving before being permitted to drive automobiles on public roads, therefore (similarly) before people are permitted to become engaged in democratic governance, they should be required to pass relevant competency tests. Stated negatively, just as incompetents aren’t permitted to drive on public roads, they shouldn’t be permitted to participate in public referendums or elections.<br /><br />Almost 2400 years ago, Aristotle saw a root problem with democracies:<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme.</blockquote>An additional root problem with democracy is, as Churchill said:<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.</blockquote>Henry Mencken added what seems to be an especially poignant description of the American form of democracy:<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Democracy is also a form of worship. It is the worship of Jackals by Jackasses. </blockquote>In fact, sometime I think that the U.S. is hell-bent on attempting to validate Aristotle’s prediction:<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms.</blockquote><br />But setting aside such negative assessments and predictions, consider Churchill’s famous statement:<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.</blockquote>Consider, also, George Bernard Shaw’s assessment:<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.</blockquote>What I would ask the reader to consider is the possibility of maintaining democracies (i.e., “people rule”) but remedying the problem of “election by the incompetent many” by specifying which of the people are permitted to participate in governing their nation.<br /><br />Perhaps readers will agree that a superficial reason why “democracy is the worst form of government” is because of the Tragedy of the Commons. That is, people (either individually or in groups) as well as corporations conclude that it’s to their immediate advantage to take what they can, while they can, from “the commons” (resulting, e.g., in resource depletion, pollution, climate change, and of course, both individual and corporate welfare, e.g., in the form of tax benefits).<br /><br />The cause of the Tragedy of the Commons is, of course, that advantages of robbing the commons are focused (on individuals or on corporations that exploit the commons) while disadvantages are diffuse. For example, although an individual fisherman may realize that fishery stocks are being irreversibly depleted, yet he has economic incentives to focus on catching what fish he can, to try to earn enough money to get through the year. Similarly, corporations will seek exemptions from specific labor and environmental restrictions, so they can be successful against domestic and foreign competitors.<br /><br />Equally obvious is that the solution to the Tragedy of Commons is to establish relevant laws (restricting use of specific commons). As James Bovard said:<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.</blockquote>Legislators have learned, however, that if they want to be re-elected, promulgating such laws in a representative democracy requires approval by the electorate – who in turn must be convinced that protecting specific commons is to their advantage. I therefore suggest that it’s “superficial” to claim that the Tragedy of the Commons is the reason why “democracy is the worst form of government”. Instead, I suggest that the real reason (and the real tragedy) is that, in so many instances, the electorate (“the incompetent many”) is either uniformed or misinformed.<br /><br />Thomas Jefferson saw the problem and proposed his famous solution:<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);">I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion.</blockquote>It’s easy to agree with Jefferson’s solution in principle, but in practice, huge difficulties have arisen and continue to arise.<br /><br />Some of the difficulties in applying Jefferson’s solution can be traced to Aristotle’s assessment:<br /><blockquote><span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);">All men by nature desire knowledge.</span> </blockquote>Support for Aristotle's assessment might now be put this way: as a general rule, knowledge increases our chance of survival; therefore, our desire for knowledge is now part of our nature, “programmed into our genes”.<br /><br />It doesn’t necessarily follow, however, that the knowledge (which we’ve been “programmed” to seek) need be correct. In the long run, genetic advantages usually accrue if the knowledge is correct, but for short durations, individuals apparently are satisfied more with possessing almost any knowledge (even if it’s incorrect!) than with confirmation that their “knowledge” is valid. Stated differently, it seems that, more than they desire accurate information, many and perhaps most people desire certainty. As a result, many people (perhaps the majority) are prone to adopting any of a huge number of “conspiracy theories” (especially if such theories are promoted with certainty) as well as similar, wild (and usually simplistic) speculations.<br /><br />Practical difficulties with Jefferson’s proposal are then apparent. Thus, when Jefferson suggests that “we inform [the people’s] discretion”, two immediate questions are: 1) Who will do the informing? and 2) Are the people sufficiently intelligent and educated to discern which “information” is valid and which is bogus? For example, although scientists are currently trying to inform people (for their benefits) that the current rate of consumption of the Earth’s resources is unsustainable, that greenhouse gases will cause global warming, and that no gods exist or have ever existed (the latter to try to convince people to base their opinions on evidence rather than data-less speculations, thereby to try to convince people to tackle our problems more intelligently); yet at the same time (and for their own benefits), corporations promote more consumption of their goods and services, fossil-fuel industries promote the idea that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax, and organized religions promote the wild speculations that their gods exist.<br /><br />Of course, Jefferson also saw that the root problem was a poorly informed (or misinformed) public:<br /><blockquote><span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);">If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.</span> </blockquote>Throughout his life, therefore, he worked to improve public education:<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);">I think by far the most important bill in our whole code is that for the diffusion of knowledge among the people… Preach… a crusade against ignorance; establish and improve the law for educating the common people. Let our countrymen know… that the tax which will be paid for this purpose is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests, and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance.</blockquote>But although Jefferson was prepared to wrestle with securing legislative approval for universal education, he encountered another problem for which he was apparently unprepared, namely, the unwillingness of some parents to have their children educated. About this problem, Jefferson wrote:<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);">In the constitution of Spain… there was a principle entirely new to me… that no person born after that day should ever acquire the rights of citizenship until he could read and write. It is impossible sufficiently to estimate the wisdom of this provision. Of all those which have been thought of for securing fidelity in the administration of the government, constant reliance to the principles of the constitution, and progressive amendments with the progressive advances of the human mind or changes in human affairs, it is the most effectual…<br /><br />Is it a right or a duty in society to take care of their infant members in opposition to the will of the parent? How far does this right and duty extend? – to guard the life of the infant, his property, his instruction, his morals? The Roman father was supreme in all these: we draw a line, but where? – public sentiment does not seem to have traced it precisely… It is better to tolerate the rare instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings and ideas by the forcible… education of the infant against the will of the father…<br /><br />What is proposed… is to remove the objection of expense, by offering education <span style="font-style: italic;">gratis</span>, and to strengthen parental excitement by the disfranchisement of his child while uneducated. Society has certainly a right to disavow him whom they offer, and are permitted to qualify for the duties of a citizen. If we do not force instruction, let us at least strengthen the motives to receive it when offered.</blockquote>As far as I know, such a proposal for “disfranchisement… while uneducated” was never enacted (at least, not in the U.S.). Yet, given what is currently occurring in many of the world’s democracies (perhaps especially in the U.S.), with too many youngsters not diligently pursuing their education and with so many “special interests” skillfully using the mass media and modern marketing-techniques to promote their own interests (and their lies!), and given that the only bulwark against such propaganda is informed and critical thoughts of the people, I therefore think that, to revitalize democracies, it’s time to resurrect Jefferson’s proposal, “trace it precisely”, and gain voter approval to implement it.<br /><br />Specifically, I recommend initiatives that culminate in national laws requiring that, before becoming engaged in politics at any level of government (and either as a voter or as a candidate for office), all youngsters be first required to pass a nation-wide, standard examination, demonstrating general knowledge as well as <a href="http://atheistplanet.blogspot.com/2009/12/qualiasoup-critical-thinking.html">critical- (or evaluative-) thinking capabilities</a>.<br /><br />And I’ll add that gaining support for such initiatives in many western nations (possibly requiring constitutional amendments) may be easier than might first be thought, since so many current voters seem discouraged both with the high-rate of school dropouts and with the poor quality of the education at so many public schools, maybe especially in the U.S. and the U.K. In other nations, different root problems must be overcome. In Pakistan, India, and Indonesia, for example, the cause of the “incompetent many” seems to be the criminal failure of leaders to invest in quality, public education. In addition, essentially all of us in other nations could learn from what seems to be occurring in Japan, S. Korea, and Taiwan, where followers of traditions established by Confucius and the Buddha have already adopted Aristotle’s wise prescription:<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">Those who educate children well are more to be honored than they who produce them; for these only gave them life; those, the art of living well.</blockquote> <a href="http://zenofzero.net/">www.zenofzero.net</a><div><br /></div>A. Zoroasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07473665017762017780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5388644395556254721.post-54720117463662534742009-11-26T07:10:00.000-08:002009-11-26T07:19:16.911-08:00Catholic Pedophiles<div><br /></div>Ah, there it is.<br /><br />With the <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091126/ap_on_re_eu/eu_ireland_catholic_abuse">latest report</a> of sexual abuse by Catholic priests and its cover-up by the Catholic hierarchy, now I understand why the Catholic Church is so opposed to abortion: sanctity of human life be damned; what they want is more fodder for their pedophiles.<br /><br />Damn them all to the Hell they concocted.<div><br /></div><div><a href="http://zenofzero.net/">www.zenofzero.net</a></div>A. Zoroasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07473665017762017780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5388644395556254721.post-84568095102027216402009-10-10T14:20:00.000-07:002009-10-11T04:58:13.217-07:00Shut up and grow up, or throw up and get off<div><br /></div>It would be humorous if the consequences weren’t so horrendous:<span style=""> </span>grownups living their lives as if they were characters in some comic book.<p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Oh sure, probably most of us did similar when we were kids.<span style=""> </span>I remember the many times that I’d head to the beach with my towel tied on like a cape, pretending to be Superman, able to leap over tall buildings (or at least, over the trunks of fallen trees) in a single bound.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Other times, when we went riding after catching the “wild” horses (actually, they were tame horses that had been set free), I was the Lone Ranger.<span style=""> </span>Sometimes, though, my big brother chose to be the Lone Ranger; then, I had to be Tonto:<span style=""> </span>“Me, kemo sahbee.”<span style=""> </span>Come to think about it, I don’t think I ever knew that “kemo sahbee” <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonto">meant</a> “faithful scout”.<span style=""> </span>But I digress.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">I imagine that girls played out their fantasy roles, too, but in the “good old days”, I wasn’t interested in mere girls.<span style=""> </span>My but how we grow beyond our childish ideas.<span style=""> </span>Well, at least some of us do.<span style=""> </span>For contrast, consider religious people.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Can you imagine it?<span style=""> </span>More than half the people in the world are living their lives like we did when we were kids.<span style=""> </span>They “think” that the characters in their “holy books” are real, as real as we imagined were Superman, the Lone Ranger, Batman and Robin…<span style=""> </span>The religious assume roles as <i>kemo sahbees</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> for Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Ezra, Jesus, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, and all their other “super heros”.<span style=""> </span>But think, too, about this:<span style=""> </span>their “holy books” aren’t comic books, they’re <a href="http://zenofzero.net/Part_3x.html">horror books.</a></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">What’s worse, believe it or not, it’s not just pretend for them: i<span style=""></span>t’s their version of reality!<span style=""> </span>Thus, extremist Jews occupy Israel with the fervor of Joshua, fundamentalist Christians watch the daily news with bated breath for signs of the Second Coming, most Mormons really are convinced that Utah is the new Zion, and crazy Muslims tie explosives around their waists, drive explosive-laden trucks into barricades and markets, or fly airplanes into buildings, eagerly dying for their <span style="font-style: italic;">Jihad</span>, convinced in their craziness that they’ll get instant access to paradise.<span style=""> </span>They’re all bonkers.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">It reminds me of something else.<span style=""> </span>When we were kids, a traveling circus would come to town every year, with its wild ride called Round the World.<span style=""> </span>It spun the “carriages” so fast that they’d swing out horizontally; so, sitting in them, forced into your seat by the centrifugal force, you’d be sitting with your face toward the ground – viewing the former contents of a lot of upset stomachs!</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Some kids would scream so much, scared out of their wits (afraid of dying, I guess), that the operator would stop the contraption to let them off.<span style=""> </span>We who still possessed the contents of our stomachs would taunt the sissies: “Shut up and grow up, or throw up and get off!” A similar taunt seems appropriate for all religious people in the world: <span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style="color:red;">“Shut up and grow up, or throw up and get off.”</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://zenofzero.net/">www.zenofzero.net</a></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="color:red;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <!--EndFragment-->A. Zoroasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07473665017762017780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5388644395556254721.post-63749781666344747332009-09-25T08:49:00.000-07:002009-09-26T05:21:48.154-07:00Even Ahmadinejad gets something right…<div><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote></blockquote><br /></div><div>I’m pleased to report that, in his 23 September 2009 <a href="http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september232009/iran_pres_un_9-23-09.php">speech</a> to the UN’s General Assembly, President Ahmadinejad of Iran made at least one sensible statement:</div><div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in"><span style="color:red;">It seems that the roots of problems [in the world] lie in the way one views and perceives the world and humankind…<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">But even with that statement, he demonstrates his shallow thinking:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>if he would dig deeper, he’d find that the root problem is failure of the majority of people to answer correctly the fundamental, epistemological question:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>“How can knowledge of the world be obtained?”</p> <p class="MsoNormal">As far as humans have been able to determine, the best answer to that question is to use the scientific method (which is as old as humanity):<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>“guess, test, and reassess”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Instead and in horrible contrast, Ahmadinejad (similar to all theists) “thinks” that knowledge of reality can be obtained simply by wishful thinking.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Thereby, they fall for the “proof-by-pleasure logical fallacy”:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>if it feels good, it’s true.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">As a result, Ahmadinejad advocates some bizarre, feel-good “truths”, which he shared with the world in his UN speech as follows:</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in">•<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count:1"></span><span style="color:red;">“God Almighty purposefully created the world.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span></span>[Really?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>What evidence supports such a notion?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>How can the idea be tested?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And even before that:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>is it logical?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>For example, how could an omnipotent being have a “purpose”?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Are you sure that your god would take kindly to your suggestion that He has an unfulfilled desire?!]</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in">•<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span><span style="color:red;">“All existence including power, knowledge, and wealth come from Him.”</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>[Really?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>What data support such a claim?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>How can it be experimentally verified?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And even if it were so (although, of course, it’s not!), then why do you keep vilifying the Jews – since it follows that their considerable knowledge, wealth, and even power was given to them by Him?!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>So, should you continue to defy your omnipotent god’s will?!]</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in">•<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span><span style="color:red;">“God created the world for humans and humans for Himself.”</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>[Oh, do tell.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Yet, in contrast to your claim, all evidence points to the conclusion that humans created gods for themselves!]</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in">•<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span><span style="color:red;">“God has created man for eternity…”</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>[Really?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Or is it, perchance, that primitive people (similar to you) were (and still are) afraid of death; so, they concocted myths about the illogical, oxymoronic idea of “life after death”?]</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in">•<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span><span style="color:red;">“God has obligated humans to live divinely and socially…”</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>[Really?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>If so, then why do so many people (such as yourself) ignore the obligation<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>of<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>their omnipotent creator god?]</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in">•<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span><span style="color:red;">“True freedom and obedience to God are in balance…”</span><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>[Yah, just like a slave is free – provided he does exactly as his master demands.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>As Mikhail Bakunin wrote in <i>God and the State</i><span style="font-style:normal"> in 1874:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in"><span style="color:navy;"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span></span></p><span style="color:navy;"><blockquote> A jealous lover of human liberty, deeming it the absolute condition of all that we admire and respect in humanity, I reverse the phrase of Voltaire and say, “If God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him.”</blockquote></span><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in">•<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span><span style="color:red;">“Obeisance to God means the acceptance of absolute truth, the absolute light, and the absolute beauty.”</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>[Ain’t that cute?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Never mind that “absolute truth” is restricted to <a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/T1_Truth_&_Knowledge.pdf">closed systems</a> (whereas reality is an open system), never mind that the phrase “absolute light” is meaningless (unless, of course, you can produce some non-absolute light), and never mind that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If Ahmadinejad says it’s so, then by God, himself, it must be so!]</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in">•<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span><span style="color:red;">“God is omniscient and knows all that is revealed or kept secret…”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span></span>[Not that there’s any evidence to support such a claim, but first, pray tell:<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>is the second clause really necessary?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>What do you think ‘omniscient’ means?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And second:<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>how could anything be both omnipotent and omniscient?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Being omniscient, He would know everything that is, ever has been, or ever could be; but then, He would be powerless to have new thoughts; therefore, He wouldn’t be omnipotent!]</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in">•<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span><span style="color:red;">“He is kind and merciful.”</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>[Except, of course, toward those of us who think that He’s a concoction of primitive people, promoted by parasitic clerics and prolonged by power mongers (such as yourself), since they claim that, right up there with killing us, He gets his kicks out of torturing us for eternity in Hell.]</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in">•<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span><span style="color:red;">“All creatures are humble before Him and resign to His will.”</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>[So it follows (so it seems) that we who consider him the figment of primitive people’s imaginations, the sting of con-artist, clerical parasites, and the tool of power mongers (such as yourself) aren’t ‘creatures’.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Okay, I’ll buy that one:<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>we’re better described as scientific humanists; but then, that makes all theists “creatures”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Hmmm.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If you want some friendly advice, Ahmadinejad, I’m not sure that your fellow unscientific antihumans will appreciate your depiction of them as “creatures”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But if you insist…]</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in">•<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span><span style="color:red;">“God is alive and is the Creator of the universe and all life.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span></span>[Damn!<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>And there I was thinking that the universe was formed by a symmetry-breaking quantum fluctuation in the original total void.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Silly me.]</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in">•<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span><span style="color:red;">“Humans need to know God in order to realize a prosperous society in this world as well as to strive for a beautiful eternal life…”<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></span>[And where did you say you put the evidence that supports such crazy ideas?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Oh, never mind.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>A more important question is:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>how soon will you be willing check out the quality of your “eternal life”?]</p> <p class="MsoNormal">And then, just great:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Ahmadinejad tells us the “the Promised One” is coming and we’ll all live “under the rule of the righteous and perfect human being”, no doubt in an Iranian-style theocracy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But tell us, Ahmadinejad, what makes you think we want to be ruled by other than ourselves?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Have you ever heard of the idea of a “democracy”, in which people rule themselves?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>No?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>I didn’t think so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It seems that you’re more into stuffing ballot boxes with “Yes-votes” for yourself.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">In sum, Ahmadinejad, ideas about gods are as crazy as the idea of letting a madman like you possess a nuclear bomb.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Still, I congratulate you on your sensible statement:</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in"><span style="color:red;">… the roots of problems [in the world] lie in the way one views and perceives the world and humankind…</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">I also agree with your</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in"><span style="color:red;">A global community filled with justice, friendship, brotherhood and welfare is at hand…</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">and your</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in"><span style="color:red;">Great developments in favor of humankind as well as its true and real rights are on the way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>A golden and brilliant future is awaiting mankind.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">A major inhibition, however, constraining humanity from realizing such possibilities, is the nonsensical and damnable “god idea”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Yet, progress is being made debunking wild speculations about gods, which are used as tools to manipulate the masses by parasitic clerics of the world and by power-mongers such as you.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://zenofzero.net/">www.zenofzero.net</a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p> <!--EndFragment--> </div>A. Zoroasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07473665017762017780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5388644395556254721.post-26270448790109093092009-08-20T03:57:00.000-07:002009-08-20T04:14:19.842-07:00God Doesn't Have a Purpose!<div><br /></div>Re. the possibility that an omnipotent God could have a purpose, perhaps the following would be of some interest.<span style=""> </span>The quotations are from an exchange I had, first in response to “jd” and then to “hackenslash”, at the <a href="http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=89842">Richard Dawkins Forum</a>.<p></p> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);" class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">jd: It would still be perfectly within the abilities of an omnipotent creator to cover up his tracks.</blockquote><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote>zoro: No it wouldn't, would it? To do so, he'd need to have a purpose, but an omnipotent anything couldn't have a purpose, since that would mean he had an unfulfilled desire, i.e., that he wasn't omnipotent.</blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);">hackenslash: Zoro: This is gold. Excellent argument, excellently explained.</blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote>zoro: Well, thank you, but of course it's not mine; it's a very old argument; I don't know who deserves credit for it. Sorry.</blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);">hackenslash: Who cares? It's a good argument. What's the point of omnipotence if everything is the way you want it, and if it isn't, how can you be omnipotent?<span style=""> </span>Solid stuff.</blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal">zoro: Come to think of it, it probably can be traced back to Aristotle. It's why he concluded that God would necessarily spend eternity just contemplating his navel – or in his words [<i>Metaphysics</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> (viz., "Beyond Physics" = "Beyond Nature" = "Supernatural"), Part 9]:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">"The nature of the divine thought involves certain problems; for while thought is held to be the most divine of things observed by us, the question how it must be situated in order to have that character involves difficulties. For if it [God] thinks of nothing, what is there here of dignity? It is just like one who sleeps. And if it [God] thinks, but this depends on something else, then (since that which is its substance is not the act of thinking, but a potency) it cannot be the best substance; for it is through thinking that its value belongs to it. Further, whether its substance is the faculty of thought or the act of thinking, what does it [God] think of? Either of itself or of something else; and if of something else, either of the same thing always or of something different. Does it matter, then, or not, whether it [God] thinks of the good or of any chance thing? Are there not some things about which it is incredible that it [God] should think? Evidently, then, it [God] thinks of that which is most divine and precious, and it [God] does not change; for change would be change for the worse, and this would be already a movement. First, then, if 'thought' is not the act of thinking but a potency, it would be reasonable to suppose that the continuity of its thinking is wearisome to it. Secondly, there would evidently be something else more precious than thought, viz. that which is thought of. For both thinking and the act of thought will belong even to one who thinks of the worst thing in the world, so that if this ought to be avoided (and it ought, for there are even some things which it is better not to see than to see), the act of thinking cannot be the best of things. Therefore it must be of itself that the divine thought thinks (since it is the most excellent of things), and its thinking is a thinking on thinking."</span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">For obvious reasons, Jewish, Christian Muslim, Mormon… clerics didn't and don't like Aristotle's god: they accepted his idea that God was "the prime mover" (I guess that none of them had ever experienced a soap bubble bursting!), but they couldn't accept his idea that God would necessarily spend eternity contemplating his own navel. It's hard to run a con game with that tag line! And so now, as one of a terrible number of atrocious examples, we have the con artist Rick Warren fleecing people out of more than $100 million (and Obama had him deliver his woo at the Inauguration!), peddling the proposition: The omnipotent God has a purpose for your life. Duh. Would that Muslim maniacs would give it a thought.<a href="http://zenofzero.net/"><br /></a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://zenofzero.net/">www.zenofzero.net</a></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p> <!--EndFragment-->A. Zoroasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07473665017762017780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5388644395556254721.post-69895713617682091082009-07-01T06:05:00.000-07:002009-07-01T06:18:43.786-07:00Means to the Ends of Gods<div><br /></div>I recently posted the following in a <a href="http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=82919">thread</a> at the <a href="http://richarddawkins.net/forum/">Richard Dawkins Forum</a>. Perhaps the ideas would be of interest to others.<br /><br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">Philosopher Jagger,<br /><br />Thank you. Yes, I think we're close, and I'm about ready to call it quits on this thread, but I think that the following is sufficiently important to solving practical problems associated with eliminating the God meme and establishing an objective, rational moral code to warrant my adding it as a postscript. For it, I'll accept risks of oversimplification in exchange for simplicity. I provide more details and admit some of the complications in three chapters starting <a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/X18_EXploiting_Competition.pdf">here</a>. Upon trying to reduce those chapters (and more) to their essence, I'd exaggerate as follows.<br /><br />If you went to America's Bible Belt, to any Muslim country, or to any similar, backward area of the world and told them that God was a delusion, you'd quite likely be putting your life in jeopardy.<br /><br />If, as an alternative, you went to them and told them that you could provide them with an objective, rational moral code, you'd likely be rejected (possibly bodily and forcefully).<br /><br />If, instead, you tried to convince them of the virtues of critical thinking, for its usefulness in studying literature, history, politics, etc. and its essential role in science, you'd probably be considered to be a radical, revisionist, revolutionist, and similar, and be rebuffed.<br /><br />If, as a final foolish alternative, you proposed that the only sound epistemology is the scientific method, then you'd probably be judged to be another, ignorable, babbling philosopher.<br /><br />If, however, you pointed out to them that the world is in the midst of a knowledge revolution, that the future will belong to those who are at the forefront of science, that from science flows security and economic strength (including jobs), etc., then almost certainly you'd be more than welcome, invited to help in the design and implementation of science curricula in their schools, etc.<br /><br />Then, in time, as their youngsters learn science, they'll necessarily learn about the scientific method, begin to determine what it means "to know", slowly become proficient in critical thinking, eventually establish an objective, rational moral code, and finally dump all silly idea of gods in the trash can of human mistakes. QED.<br /></blockquote><a href="http://zenofzero.net/">www.zenofzero.net</a><div><br /></div>A. Zoroasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07473665017762017780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5388644395556254721.post-85506981277409458102009-06-22T17:22:00.000-07:002009-06-22T17:49:11.750-07:00Modifying Ends<div><br /></div><div>Of course I agree with the old adage: “the ends don’t justify the means.” Pity that the rulers in Iran – and for that matter, all Islamic clerics – and for that matter, all clerics – didn’t appreciate that wisdom.</div><br />The wisdom, obviously, is that the means are ends in themselves. It’s therefore necessary to evaluate which is more important: the end that would be pursued by the chosen means or the means, themselves.<br /><br />But I didn’t see how the ends could be competently manipulated.<br /><br />A great example was recently given in a <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motivation.html">posting</a> of an old, 1987 article in <span style="font-style: italic;">The Boston Globe</span> written by Alfie Kohn and entitled “Creativity and intrinsic interest diminish if [a] task is done for gain”:<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">There is an old joke that nicely illustrates the principle. An elderly man, harassed by the taunts of neighborhood children, finally devises a scheme. He offered to pay each child a dollar if they would all return Tuesday and yell their insults again. They did so eagerly and received the money, but he told them he could only pay 25 cents on Wednesday. When they returned, insulted him again and collected their quarters, he informed them that Thursday’s rate would be just a penny. “Forget it,” they said — and never taunted him again.</blockquote>Now, if only all the mullahs in Iran (and Saudi Arabia and…) could be made to realize that ruling people isn’t all that it was cracked up to be.<br /><br /><a href="http://zenofzero.net/">www.zenofzero.net</a><div><br /></div>A. Zoroasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07473665017762017780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5388644395556254721.post-50980499978026856672009-04-30T10:48:00.000-07:002009-04-30T10:59:21.941-07:00A Brave Muslim Intellectual vs. Cowardly Islamic Clerics<div><br /></div>Read the first report copied below (from ArabNews.com) and weep in despair for Muslim children because of cowardly Islamic clerics; read the second (from the Middle East Media Research Institute) to regain some hope, courtesty brave Muslim intellectuals such as Ibrahim Al-Buleihi.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">1. <a href="http://www.arabnews.com/?page=24&section=0&article=122050&d=30&m=4&y=2009">Scholars hotly debate treatment of apostates</a></span><br />Badea Abu Al-Naja<br />Arab News; April 30, 2009<br /><br />SHARJAH: In a session here on religious freedom, Muslim scholars from around the world yesterday debated how apostates should be treated according to Islamic law.<br /><br />More than 200 delegates representing 60 countries are discussing diverse issues in the light of Shariah at the ongoing International Islamic Fiqh Conference hosted by Sharjah ruler Sheikh Sultan bin Mohammed Al-Qassimi.<br /><br />The event at the Zahra Hall Auditorium at the University of Sharjah has been organized by the International Islamic Fiqh Academy (IIFA), an offshoot of the Jeddah-based Organization of the Islamic Conference.<br /><br />While several scholars demanded a review of the punishment for apostates in the light of the changing modern values, others refuted their argument saying the original Islamic texts call for harsh punishments.<br /><br />“Religious freedom is a right that should be guaranteed to every human being. We have come here to present and discuss different viewpoints and we should do it in order to reach the right solution,” said Mahmoud Zaqzouq, Egypt’s minister of endowments.<br /><br />Some participants doubted the validity of texts quoted in support of the beheading of apostates. On the other hand, several others were adamant in their refusal to the demand for a lighter approach toward apostates in the name of freedom of religion.<br /><br />“The view that Islamic scholars of the past had different views on how to punish apostates is incorrect. They only disagreed on how soon apostates should be executed; should it be done in three days, one week or few months. The waiting time is left to the discretion of the ruler,” said Muhammad Al-Nujaimi, a professor at the Higher Institute of Law in Riyadh.<br /><br />Referring to criticisms from international human rights organizations, he said: “These groups will never stop attacking Islam even if we were to agree to all their demands. Their lack of sincerity is clear from their attitude to the atrocities committed by the Israeli government in occupied Palestinian territories. We will never allow others to dictate our religion to us.”<br /><br />Abdul Salam Al-Ebadi, secretary-general of the IIFA, said the topic of religious freedom was given priority in yesterday’s deliberations because several countries, particularly the ministries of Islamic Affairs and Foreign Affairs in OIC member countries, demanded a clarification on the correct stand toward apostates. He said a six-member committee of scholars has been entrusted with the task of studying the issue and submitting recommendations. OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu and IIFA Chairman Saleh Bin-Humaid, who is also chairman of Saudi Arabia’s Supreme Judicial Council, are participating in the forum.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">2. <a href="http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD233209">Saudi Intellectual: Western Civilization Has Liberated Mankind</a></span><br />The Middle East Media Research Insititue (MEMRI)<br />April 29, 2009; No. 2332<br /><br />In an interview published April 23, 2009 in the Saudi Daily 'Okaz, reformist thinker Ibrahim Al-Buleihi expressed his admiration for Western civilization. The interview was posted on the same day on the <a href="http://www.elaph.com/Web/NewsPapers/2009/4/433121.htm">Elaph website</a>. Al-Buleihi calls on the Arabs to acknowledge the greatness of Western civilization, and to admit the deficiencies of their own culture. He states that such self-criticism is a precondition to any change for the better. Ibrahim Al-Buleihi is a member of the Saudi Shura Council. [Note: the notes in brackets in what follows were added by the translator.]<br /><br />Following are excerpts from the interview:<br /><br />'Okaz {Interviewer}: "I begin with the crucial issue which distinguishes your thought and which your opponents always raise against you - namely, your being completely dazzled by the West, while you completely belittle Arabic thought. Truly, this is the most outstanding feature of your writings. There is also extreme self-flagellation which many see [in your writings]. What is the cause of this?"<br /><br />Buleihi: "My attitude towards Western civilization is an attitude based on obvious facts and great accomplishments; here is a reality full of wonderful and amazing things. [Recognizing] this doesn't mean that I am blindly fascinated. This is the very opposite of the attitude of those who deny and ignore the bright lights of Western civilization. Just look around… and you will notice that everything beautiful in our life has been produced by Western civilization: even the pen that you are holding in your hand, the recording instrument in front of you, the light in this room, and the journal in which you work, and many innumerable amenities, which are like miracles for the ancient civilizations.… If it were not for the accomplishments of the West, our lives would have been barren. I only look objectively and value justly what I see and express it honestly. Whoever does not admire great beauty is a person who lacks sensitivity, taste, and observation. Western civilization has reached the summit of science and technology. It has achieved knowledge, skills, and new discoveries, as no previous civilization before it. The accomplishments of Western civilization cover all areas of life: methods of organization, politics, ethics, economics, and human rights. It is our obligation to acknowledge its amazing excellence. Indeed, this is a civilization that deserves admiration. … The horrible backwardness in which some nations live is the inevitable result of their refusal to accept this [abundance of Western ideas and visions] while taking refuge in denial and arrogance."<br /><br />'Okaz: "Sir, you can admire this civilization as much as you want, but not at the expense of others, especially our own civilization."<br /><br />Buleihi: "My admiration for the West is not at the expense of others; rather, it is an invitation to those others to acknowledge their illusions and go beyond their inferiority and liberate themselves from backwardness. [Those others] should admit their shortcomings, and make an effort to overcome them; they should stop denying the truth and closing their eyes to the multitude of wonderful achievements. They should be fair towards those nations that achieved prosperity for themselves but did not monopolize it for themselves and instead allowed the whole world to share the results of this progress, so that other nations of the whole world now enjoy these achievements. Furthermore, Western civilization has given to the world knowledge and skills which made it possible for them, the non-Western nations, to compete with it in production and share markets with it. Criticizing one's own deficiencies is a precondition to inducing oneself to change for the better. Conversely, to glorify one's backward apathetic self is to establish and fortify backwardness, to strengthen the shackles of apathy, and to eradicate the capabilities of excellence. Backwardness is a shameful reality, which we should resent and from which we must liberate ourselves."<br /><br />'Okaz: "This may be so, and I'm with you in this demand but, sir, would you summarize for us the reason for your admiration of Western culture, so that we can have a basis for discussion?"<br /><br />Buleihi: "There is no one reason, there are a thousand reasons, which all induce me to admire the West and emphasize its absolute excellence in all matters of life. Western civilization is the only civilization that liberated man from his illusions and shackles; it recognized his individuality and provided him with capabilities and opportunities to cultivate himself and realize his aspirations. [Western civilization] humanized political authority and established mechanisms to guarantee relative equality and relative justice and to prevent injustice and to alleviate aggression. This does not mean that this is a flawless civilization; indeed, it is full of deficiencies. Yet it is the greatest which man has achieved throughout history. [Before the advent of Western civilization,] humanity was in the shackles of tyranny, impotence, poverty, injustice, disease, and wretchedness.<br /><br />"It is an extraordinary civilization, and it is not an extension of any ancient civilization, with the exception of Greek civilization, which is the source of contemporary civilization. I have completed a book on this great extraordinary civilizational leap, titled The Qualitative Changes in Human Civilization. Western civilization is its own product and it is not indebted to any previous civilization except for the Greek one … It has revived the Greek achievements in the fields of philosophy, science, literature, politics, society, human dignity, and veneration of reason, while recognizing its shortcomings and illusions and stressing its continuous need for criticism, review and correction."<br /><br />'Okaz: "In your words here, you completely wipe out all the endeavors and creativity of previous civilizations such as the Islamic one, by stating that the West not indebted to it."<br /><br />Buleihi: "Indeed, it is not, nor is it indebted to any other previous civilization. Western civilization has its foundation in Greece in the sixth and fifth centuries BC; then it stopped in the Middle Ages, but resumed its progress in modern times, when its benefits have come to include all nations. It is really extraordinary in every meaning of the word - excellence, uniqueness, and novelty… It has components and qualities which distinguish it from all previous and subsequent civilizations. It is the product of philosophical thinking invented by the Greeks. The Europeans have based themselves on this kind of thinking, especially on its critical aspect, which developed the capability of producing objective knowledge that is always open to review, correction and progress…"<br /><br />'Okaz: "Some Western thinkers wrote that Western civilization is an extension of previous civilizations. How can you, a Muslim Arab, deny this?"<br /><br />Buleihi: "When we review the names of Muslim philosophers and scholars whose contribution to the West is pointed out by Western writers, such as Ibn Rushd, Ibn Al-Haitham, Ibn Sina, Al-Farbi, Al-Razi, Al-Khwarizmi, and their likes, we find that all of them were disciples of the Greek culture and they were individuals who were outside the [Islamic] mainstream. They were and continue to be unrecognized in our culture. We even burned their books, harassed them, [and] warned against them, and we continue to look at them with suspicion and aversion. How can we then take pride in people from whom we kept our distance and whose thought we rejected?...<br /><br />"As for the question of cultural development, there are two approaches. According to one approach, civilization is the product of a cumulative process. However, this approach is contradicted by the facts of history. According to the other approach, a quantitative change does not become a qualitative one, except through an extraordinary leap. This is the correct compelling approach, which I adopt. Quantity cannot possibly turn into quality spontaneously. …<br /><br />"The only civilization which possesses the ingredients of perpetual progress is Western civilization, with its Greek foundation and its amazing contemporary formation. … Western civilization believes that it is impossible to possess absolute truth and that human perfection is impossible, so man must strive to achieve it while recognizing that it is impossible to reach. Thus it is the only civilization which is constantly growing and constantly reviewing and correcting itself and achieving continuous discoveries. …"<br /><br />'Okaz: "Let me ask you about your complete fascination with Western civilization."<br /><br />Buleihi: "The light of this civilization is very bright and only a blind person can be oblivious to its brightness. Anyone who is capable of sight and insight is inevitably fascinated by it… We should give credit where credit is due. Has any previous civilization dreamt of the astounding revelations and exact silences and complex technologies [achieved by Western civilization]? Have previous generations imagined the possibility of opening the human chest or head and conducting intricate surgeries on the heart and brain? Could they imagine the deep understanding of the living cell and the way it is formed…. Did they imagine airplanes, cars, telephones, and innumerable accomplishments of this civilization? Would you want us to go back to writing on parchment and papyrus and using wooden sticks for pens, and riding donkeys? …<br /><br />'Okaz: "Sorry, no one has asked you to return to the era of donkeys, but it is necessary to pass historical judgment in a fair and balanced way. You are saying that you want 'to give credit where credit is due,' but, in fact, you deny any credit to whatever existed before Western civilization, and while everybody recognizes that human achievements are cumulative in nature, you negate that axiomatic rule when you speak about Western accomplishments."<br /><br />Buleihi: "Humanity lived thousands of years ruminating on the same ideas and living in the same conditions, using the same tools and instruments. It could have continued forever in this way if it were not for the emergence of philosophical thinking in Greece in the sixth and fifth centuries BC. Civilizational progress at its current level cannot be achieved by accumulation; rather, it is the outcome of great revolutions in the fields of thought, science, politics, society, and labor. …<br /><br />"What pushes man out of his routine is the struggle of ideas, the freedom of choice, and equal opportunity. The best proof of this is that many peoples today live in the depth of backwardness, despite the availability of science, technology, and ideas. They witness the examples of prosperity, and despite this, these backwards peoples are unable to abandon their trenches and free themselves from their shackles. In other words, they are unable to emulate those who are prosperous and they are completely unable to invent and initiate."<br /><br />'Okaz: "There is a crucial question in our debate: do you understand by civilization only its material aspect?"<br /><br />Buleihi: "The most important achievement of Western civilization is the humanization of political authority, dividing it into separate powers, and establishing and keeping a balance between the separate powers. Western civilization has given priority to the individual and subordinated its institutions, laws, and procedures to this principle, whereas in the old civilizations the individual was a cog in a machine."<br /><br />'Okaz: "A cog in a machine? Do you believe that this is true also of Islamic civilization?"<br /><br />Buleihi: "We sharply distinguish between Islam in itself and what people do in its name. The great principles of Islam and its sublime doctrines that emphasize and uphold human value and dignity have not had a chance throughout history to establish themselves. Ever since the end of the period of the rightly-guided Caliphs, man's individuality was eradicated in Arab history and his value has been linked to his political, religious, regional, or tribal affiliation… The only civilization which acknowledges and respects man as an individual is Western civilization… Behavior in any field is not the outcome of teachings, as such, but rather of practice and actual experience...."<br /><br />'Okaz: "Has this been the case throughout all of Arab history, in your opinion?"<br /><br />Buleihi: "Yes, all of Arab history can be characterized in this gloomy way, except for the period of the rightly-guided Caliphs and discrete periods such as the reign of Omar ibn 'Abd Al-'Aziz. One should not confuse the sublime principles and doctrines of Islam with its history, which is full of mistakes, transgression, and tragedies. When the Abbasids overcame the Umayyads, they covered the bodies of the dead with rugs and held a feast over the bodies in a display of vengeance. When [Caliph] Al-Ma'mun defeated his brother Al-Amin, he flayed him like a lamb. This scene recurs throughout our history. Political power is the pivotal value in Arab culture. In our age, there have been recurrent military coups in the Arab world, in a struggle for power, but not in an attempt to bring about a change for the better. Each successive regime is worse than its predecessor."<br /><br />'Okaz: "Mr. Buleihi, haven't you read in the history of your people about hundreds of scholars who had significance and impact and whose lives are studied to this day, even though they possessed no power, tribe, or religious affiliation, and who are valued for their scholarship?"<br /><br />Buleihi: "This is a general statement which is not backed by fact. Arab history, with the exception of the period of the rightly-guided Caliphs, was dominated by politics. When the Fatimids took over Egypt and North Africa, these areas became Shiite, and when Salah Al-Din Al-Ayyubi [i.e. Saladin] put an end to the Fatimids, he drove out everything that had any relation to Shiism. The same happened when the Safavids converted Iran to Shiism, which then led the Ottomans to act the same way [in imposing Sunnism]. Thus Arab history, or Islamic history, in the wider sense, is the outcome of political ups and downs…."<br /><br />'Okaz: "Let me pause here for a moment. You are reducing Islamic history just to political history. Even Islamic political history for all its tragedies, is not as bad as you described it. You also overlook the scientific and cultural aspects of Islamic history, which created a great civilization even while Europe suffered under the rule of feudalism, the Church, ignorance, and backwardness."<br /><br />Buleihi: "We have inherited certain clichés about our history and the history of other nations without reading our history critically and without reading the history of others fairly and objectively. The luminous Greek civilization emerged in the sixth century BC and reached the peak of its flourishing in the fifth century BC. In other words, Greek civilization emerged many generations before the Islamic one, and Greek philosophy was the source from which Muslim philosophers derived their philosophy. Those individuals in whom we sometimes take pride, such as Ibn Rushd, Ibn Al-Haytham, Al-Razi, Al-Qindi, Al-Khawarizmi, and Al-Farabi were all pupils of Greek thought. As for our civilization, it is a religious one, concerned with religious law, totally absorbed in the details of what Muslims should do and shouldn't do in his relations with Allah and in his relations with others. This is a huge task worthy of admiration, because religion is the pivot of life. We must however recognize that our achievements are all confined to this great area. Let us not claim then that the West has borrowed from us its secular lights. Our culture has been and continues to be absorbed with questions of the forbidden and the permitted and belief and disbelief, because it is a religious civilization…”<br /><br />'Okaz: "They [the Muslims] learned from the Greek civilization and this is not a fault, this is the way young civilizations are, they learn from previous civilizations and build upon them. Is it expected that they should have abolished the achievements of the Greeks and started from zero?"<br /><br />Buleihi: "I am not against learning [from others]. What I wanted to clarify is that these [achievements] are not of our own making, and those exceptional individuals were not the product of Arab culture, but rather Greek culture. They are outside our cultural mainstream and we treated them as though they were foreign elements. Therefore we don't deserve to take pride in them, since we rejected them and fought their ideas. Conversely, when Europe learned from them it benefited from a body of knowledge which was originally its own because they were an extension of Greek culture, which is the source of the whole of Western civilization."<br /><br /><a href="http://zenofzero.net/">www.zenofzero.net</a><div><br /></div>A. Zoroasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07473665017762017780noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5388644395556254721.post-2039448566725259432009-03-18T06:13:00.000-07:002009-03-26T04:56:37.245-07:00On Hopes and Fears<div><br /></div><a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/Hope.pdf">Elsewhere</a> I explored a method for quantitatively evaluating hopes. Below, I’ll briefly review the method, next suggest that a similar method is available to evaluate fears, and then, demonstrate how hopes and fears can be linked.<br /><br />Starting with hopes, the principal meaning for ‘hope’ given in Webster’s New World Dictionary is: “a feeling that what is wanted will happen; desire accompanied by expectation.” Equivalently, therefore, ‘hope’ is what mathematicians call “expected value”, philosophers and economists call “utility”, engineers call “risk”, and gamblers call “payback”. Thereby, ‘hope’ can be estimated quantitatively: if some value (e.g., a monetary value) can be placed on what’s desired, then ‘hope’ is the assigned value multiplied by the probability that what’s desired can be achieved.<br /><br />It might be useful to illustrate the method with a couple of examples.<br /><br />For the first example, suppose you assign the value of “having a good day” to be $100. Further, suppose you estimate that the probability that you’ll have a good day, today, to be quite large, namely, 90%. Then a quantitative evaluation of your hope that today will be a good day is the expected value = (value) x (probability of its being achieved) = $100 x 90% = $90; i.e., you have quite a large hope that today will be a good day.<br /><br />As another example, suppose that you assign the value of your life to be $1 billion, that you have cancer, and that the best information available suggests that there’s only 1 chance in a million that the therapy will be successful. Then the hope that you’ll assign to your recovery has a value of only $10^9 x 10^(-6) = $1,000.<br /><br />Now, consider fears. Webster’s prime definition of ‘fear’ is<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">a feeling of anxiety and agitation caused by the presence or nearness of danger, evil, pain, etc; timidity; dread; terror; fright; apprehension…</blockquote>The Oxford-American Dictionary gives for ‘fear’:<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><ul><li>an unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain, or a threat…</li><li>(archaic) a mixed feeling of dread and reverence</li><li>(fear for) a feeling of anxiety concerning the outcome of something or the safety and well-being of someone</li><li>the likelihood of something unwelcome happening… </li></ul></blockquote>A definition of ‘fear’ that I think improves those definitions and that reveals the symmetry (or anti-symmetry) of hope and fear is the following:<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);">fear is a feeling that what isn’t wanted (i.e., what's dreaded) will happen; dread accompanied by expectation.</blockquote>If that proposed definition of ‘fear’ is accepted and if values and probabilities can be estimated, then as in the case of hope, fear can be evaluated quantitatively.<br /><br />To illustrate, consider examples similar to those used above.<br /><br />For the first example, suppose you continue to assign the value of “having a good day” to be $100. Further, suppose you estimate that there’s a 10% probability that, today, you’ll have a bad day. Then a quantitative evaluation of your fear that today will be a bad day is the expected value = (value of a good day) x (probability of not having a good day) = $100 x 10% = $10; i.e., you’ll have only a relatively small fear that you’ll have a bad day today.<br /><br />As a second example, consider again the case that you have life-threatening cancer. Suppose that you continue to assign the value of your life to be $1 billion and that there’s only 1 chance in a million that the therapy will be successful, i.e., that the probability of your dying is 0.999999 . Then the fear that you’ll die can be quantitatively evaluated as (value of life) x (probability of dying) = $10^9 x (0.999999) = $999,999,000, i.e., your fear of dying is very large.<br /><br />If the above, proposed definition of ‘fear’ is accepted, then at least in simple cases and for a single event (or possession or similar), a link becomes apparent between fear and hope and with the assigned value of the event. Mathematically, the relationship can be seen starting from the following steps:<br /><br />(i) Hope = Value x (probability of realizing that value), and<br /><br />(ii) Fear = Value x (probability of failing to realize that value).<br /><br />Now and for what follows, consider those relatively simple events (or possessions or similar) for which the value either materializes or doesn’t materialize, i.e., ignore “partial realizations”. In such cases, from the definition of ‘probability’:<br /><br />(iii) Probability of realization = [ 1 – (probability of failure of realization)].<br /><br />So, substituting the definition (iii) into either (i) or (ii), e.g., into (i):<br /><br />(iv) Hope = Value x (probability of realizing that value)<br /><br /> = Value [ 1 – (probability of failing to realize that value)]<br /><br /> = Value – Value x (probability of failing to realize the value)<br /><br /> = Value – Fear, or<br /><br /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);">(v) Hope + Fear = Value .</span><br /><br />In words, the result is that, for a rational person, the sum of the magnitudes of one’s ‘hope’ and ‘fear’ associated with a single event (or possession or similar) must be the total value placed on the event. Therefore, in that sense and for such cases, hope and fear are complementary. The result is a quantitative restatement of Spinoza's qualitative assessment:<div><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">There can be no hope without fear, and no fear without hope</span>.</blockquote>As an illustration, consider again the hope that you’ll have a good day. Above, I estimated this hope to be (value = $100) x (probability of having a good day = 90%) = $90. Elsewhere above, I also evaluated the magnitude of the fear that you would have a bad day to be (value of good day = $100) x [probability of having a bad day = (1 – probability of having a good day) = 10%] = $10. Thus, consistent with result given by Equation (v), above, your hope of having a good day (= $90) plus the magnitude of your fear of not having a good day (=$10) sum to the value you placed on having a good day (i.e., $100).<br /><br />More complicated illustrations deal with the fear of Hell, the hope of not going to Hell, the hope of Heaven, and the fear of not going to Heaven. As a first step, consider fear of Hell. For this case, suppose that the value I place on my not going to Hell was the huge sum $10^(100) and suppose I put the probability of my going to Hell (based on the <a href="http://zenofzero.net/docs/IiIndoctrinationinIgnorance.pdf">likelihood</a> of such a clerical concoction actually existing) to be 10^(-500). Then the magnitude of my fear of going to hell would be $10^(100) x 10^(-500) = $10^(-400) = 0.000000 (continue on for a total of about 400 zeros)…1 ¢; i.e., not worth a second thought. The other fears and hopes associated with Heaven and Hell are similarly not worth a second (or a second’s) thought.<br /><br />Thus in practice, obviously the key steps in realistically evaluating hopes and fears are to define realistic values for what is desired or dreaded, respectively, and to obtain realistic estimates for the probabilities that what’s wanted (hoped) and what’s dreaded (feared) will be realized. In contrast, those people who chase the will-o’-the-wisp of Heaven or tremor at the thought of Hell are like children of the age of “the terrible twos”: adamant about knowing what they like and dislike but incapable of realistic evaluations of associated probabilities; they’re driven by emotion untempered by reason.<br /><br />Undoubtedly, much of the blame belongs to the clerics of the world. Either they’re too ignorant to evaluate relevant probabilities or, similar to all con-artists, for their own profit they purposefully ignore relevant probabilities and promote resulting, unrealistic hopes and fears. In the end, though, adults who are taken-in by such snake-oil salesmen must accept responsibilities for their own lives: as all con-artists know, you can’t cheat an honest man. Yet, pity the poor children of the world (especially in Muslim countries): before they’re able to realistically evaluate probabilities on their own, they’re indoctrinated with an absurd hope of Heaven and a horrible fear of Hell.<br /><br />Surely to any loving god (if only there were one!) a special place in Hell is reserved for clerics who concocted and promote the hideous idea of Hell. As Robert Ingersoll said:<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">All the meanness, all the revenge, all the selfishness, all the cruelty, all the hatred, all the infamy of which the heart of man is capable, grew, blossomed and bore fruit in this one word, Hell.</blockquote>Before 2000 BCE Ptah-Hotep admonished against it: “Let no man inspire men with fear…” Four thousand years later Ingersoll added:<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">Fear paralyzes the brain. Progress is born of courage. Fear believes – courage doubts. Fear falls upon the earth and prays – courage stands erect and thinks. Fear retreats – courage advances. Fear is barbarism – courage is civilization. Fear believes in witchcraft, in devils and in ghosts. Fear is religion – courage is science.</blockquote>As science continues to progress, I expect that (within a century or so) humanity will be able to purge itself of essentially all ideas about any supernatural Heaven and Hell. More quantitatively, since I place the value of purging humanity of such ludicrous ideas to be very large, say $10^(15), then even if the probability of it occurring within a century is only one in a million, then the value of my associated hope for humanity is $10^15 x 10^(-6) = $10^9 = one billion dollars – which, for me, reflects quite a bit of hope! And I admit to being an optimist, i.e., to focus on the hope that humanity will succeed in ridding itself of all organized religions rather than on the fear that it won’t.<br /><br /><a href="http://zenofzero.net/">www.zenofzero.net</a><div><br /></div></div>A. Zoroasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07473665017762017780noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5388644395556254721.post-89270542974755769802009-01-18T04:56:00.000-08:002009-01-26T13:37:51.637-08:00On Making Morality Mundane<div><br /></div>Recently, for my other <a href="http://zenofzero.blogspot.com/">blog</a>, I wanted a more-concise description of morality than the multi-chapter <a href="http://zenofzero.net/Part_3.html">description</a> in my on-line <a href="http://zenofzero.net/">book</a>. The result is given below, along with suggestions about how progress might be made toward the goal of wider agreement on what’s moral and what isn’t. I start with some definitions.<br /><br />According to the <span style="font-style: italic;">Oxford American Dictionary</span>, the morality of any act is “the extent to which an action is right or wrong.” In turn, that definition obviously requires definitions for ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ – topics that I’ll get to, shortly. Here, though, I don’t want to participate in (or contribute to) arguments about distinctions among the words ‘morality’, ‘ethics’, ‘customs’, and ‘laws’. Instead, I’ll simply explain my planned use of those words, in which my emphasis is on distinguishing who decides what’s “right or wrong”.<br /><br />Thus, by ‘morality’ I’ll generally mean that individuals decide what’s “right or wrong”. By ‘ethics’ I’ll generally mean that some limited group (e.g., a professional society) makes the decision (e.g., on an “ethical code” for lawyers). By ‘customs’ I’ll mean that the majority of some community has made the decision about “right or wrong” (e.g., about what clothing or what sexual activity is appropriate). And by ‘laws’ I’ll mean that some government authority has decided what’s “right or wrong” – and has the power to enforce its decision. Of these four concepts (morals, ethics, customs, and laws), I consider morality to be fundamental, because once a “sufficient number” of individuals agree on “the extent to which an action is right or wrong”, then ethics, customs, and laws usually follow – albeit, sometimes slowly.<br /><br />Distinguishing who decides what’s right vs. wrong can eliminate some confusion. For example, the act of kicking a boulder would probably be judged as immoral (i.e., dumb) by the person with the resulting sore toe, but as far as I know, such an act isn’t unethical or illegal and isn’t customary (except, perhaps, for little boys). Driving a truck on the wrong side of the road is, however, immoral (dumb), unethical (I expect that any professional trucker’s association would agree), uncustomary, and illegal.<br /><br />But more significant (than distinguishing among the words ‘moral’, ‘ethics’, ‘customs’, and ‘laws’) is the judgment about the “rightness” or “wrongness” of any act. If desired, such judgments can be assigned a numerical value on a scale running from, say, –10 to +10, with the value –10 assigned to an act judged to be “horrible” or “evil” or even “satanic” and with the value +10 for an act judged to be “perfect” or even “godly”. In reality, however, such values have nothing to do with any devils or gods – which is rather convenient, given that such “supernatural beings” don’t exist (claims by all clerics to the contrary notwithstanding). Instead, the source of all judgments about such values is experience.<br /><br />Thus, experience has shown that it’s important for humans (and animals!) to have the ability to judge what’s right vs. wrong (and all shades in between). Unfortunately, though, such judgments are often contentious. In turn, such contentions arise in proportion to disagreements about goals or purposes. That is, moral values (as with any values) can be judged only with respect to some objective or purpose – and similarly for ethical values, customs, and laws. Consequently, to judge “the extent to which an action is right or wrong”, we must first judge the extent to which the PURPOSE of the action is right or wrong.<br /><br />That result can seem to be a “show stopper”: what criteria are to be used to judge the extent to which a purpose is right or wrong? It is, however, not so much a show stopper as a “divider”, since different people, groups, and societies not only choose different purposes but also, of course, claim that their purposes are “right”. For example, many scientific humanists claim that the prime purpose of humans should be to help solve our problems more intelligently (or words to that effect), while “unscientific antihumans” (i.e., theists) claim that the prime goal is serve their god. As another example, Zionists maintain that their prime goal is to ensure that Israel continues to exist, while Islamic jihadis maintain that one of their prime goals is to “eliminate the Zionist enemy”. With such different purposes, different morals, ethics, customs, and laws usually follow.<br /><br />To illustrate further, consider another extreme. Thus, if the prime goal of a Muslim extremist is to spread Islam throughout the world, so that everyone will parrot “there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger”, then slitting the throat of another “unbeliever” will score very high (maybe a +8) on such an idiot’s “morality scale”. Further, and as unbelievable as it may seem to enlightened humans, killing apostates is customary, ethical (e.g., for the police), and lawful in many Islamic countries.<br /><br />In contrast, for those of us whose prime goal is to understand and who have concluded that beliefs should be held only as strongly as relevant evidence warrants, then on our “morality scale”, the act of highest moral value (scoring a +10) is to use our brains as best we can, which includes evaluating all relevant and reliable data. Therefore, upon finding no data that support the contention that any god exists (let alone Allah, i.e., “the god”) and finding suggestions (e.g., in the Koran) that Muhammad was “mad” (as judged by some who knew him), we scientific humanists judge the acts of Islamic terrorists to be the epitome of evil (i.e., scoring a –10). For the same reasons, we abhor the custom of killing apostates, we seek to make the act illegal worldwide, and we consider any policeman who enforces such a law or any lawyer who defends it to be unethical.<br /><br />To reduce such contentions, it would appear to be useful to attempt to identify common purposes that all humans pursue. Stated differently, to reach agreements about morality (“the extent to which an act is right or wrong”), it would appear to be necessary to agree, first, on what purposes or goals are right or wrong, or more generally, to agree on priorities for human goals. At the outset, however, the possibility for such an agreement (on priorities for human goals) seems remote. No agreement seems possible, for example, between religious extremists and “unbelievers” (in their fairy tales), whom religious fanatics want to kill. Similarly, no agreement seems possible between Israel and Iran (whose president seeks Israel’s destruction). Nonetheless, there are reasons to have some hope for humanity.<br /><br />To participate in such hope, consider first the obvious fact that all humans pursue a huge variety of goals, and we adjust our goals as conditions warrant. Yet, simultaneously, Nature has “programmed” all humans (and, in fact, all life) with the same prime goal (i.e., that goal for which all other goals would be sacrificed), namely, for life to continue. Those species not so programmed are now extinct. Unfortunately, however, Nature’s method for achieving the prime goal (of having life continue) contains features that individuals find either confusing or undesirable – and even more unfortunately, some unscrupulous people (namely, clerics) have found ways to capitalize on both the confusion and the undesirability.<br /><br />Specifically, Nature found (by experience) that, faced with changing physical and biological environments, the most efficacious way for life to continue was to provide life (i.e., self replicating, information-laden molecules) only with temporary hosts (individuals with finite lifetimes) and to rely on random mutations (e.g., occurring during sexual reproduction) to provide new hosts more fit for survival in modified environments. Most individuals are apparently quite satisfied with the sexual aspects of Nature’s method (although Catholic priests may be exceptions), but simultaneously and understandably, most individuals are dissatisfied with Nature’s method of discarding used hosts (especially, their own deaths).<br /><br />Thereby, Nature obviously squeezes individuals in a powerful mental vice. On one side of the vice, Nature requires individuals to avoid death, to strive to survive, to thrive, to reproduce, and to help their offspring do similar. But meanwhile, on the other side of the vice, individuals feel the impenetrable crush of their inevitable death. Being placed in such a vice, many individuals understandably seek escape – and not just temporary escape (e.g., via medical assistance) but also permanent escape (e.g., via mental aberrations available in most organized religions). Thus, primitive people imagined that they could live forever – and to this day, primitive people still cling to such a delusion (available and foundational in, e.g., Hinduism, some sects of Judaism, all Christians sects including Mormonism, and all Islamic sects).<br /><br />If participation in the “life-after-death” delusion were the only aberration of religion, then possibly it wouldn’t cause much harm. Most unfortunately, however, clerics throughout the world have caused (and continue to cause) enormous harm – not only by parasitically peddling the delusion that people can avoid death (an activity comparable to selling snake-oil medicine or other illegal drugs) but also by simultaneously maintaining that the delusional goal of eternal life is the basis of morality.<br /><br />Granted, the clerics’ logic may appear to be sound: if morality (“the extent to which an action is right or wrong”) can be judged only with respect to some objective and if the prime objective is to attain eternal life, then morality should be evaluated with respect to the goal of attaining eternal life. But though the logic appears sound (sufficiently sound to convince the majority of humans alive today!), yet the conclusion is totally unreliable, since it’s based on the purely speculative premiss that life can continue past death – a premiss not only supported by zero evidence but also patently absurd (“life after death” being an oxymoron).<br /><br />Throughout history, the tragic mistake of linking morality to such supernatural silliness has had enormous and enormously horrible consequences, from breaking families apart (as Jesus advocated) to the Christian Inquisition, and from religious wars to Islam’s current Dark Ages. As Arthur C. Clarke summarized:<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">The greatest tragedy in mankind’s entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.</blockquote>To recover from this tragedy some obvious options are available. One option, described by Freud in his 1932 book <span style="font-style: italic;">Moses and Monotheism</span>, is (essentially) to wait for humanity to “grow up” and discard its religious delusions. He wrote:<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">While the different religions wrangle with one another as to which of them is in possession of the truth, in our view the truth of religion may be altogether disregarded. Religion is an attempt to get control over the sensory world, in which we are placed, by means of the wish-world, which we have developed inside us as a result of biological and psychological necessities. But it cannot achieve its end. Its doctrines carry with them the stamp of the times in which they originated, the ignorant childhood days of the human race. Its consolations deserve no trust.<br /><br />Experience teaches us that the world is not a nursery. The ethical commands, to which religion seeks to lend its weight, require some other foundations instead, for human society cannot do without them, and it is dangerous to link up obedience to them with religious belief. If one attempts to assign to religion its place in man’s evolution, it seems not so much to be a lasting acquisition, as a parallel to the neurosis which the civilized individual must pass through on his way from childhood to maturity.</blockquote>One of Freud’s friends, Einstein, made a more progressive suggestion:<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action… A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.</blockquote>Subsequently, and extremely fortunately for humanity, the internet has been developed, and with its worldwide use, potentials have vastly improved for enlightening all people, stimulating them to reject the supernatural silliness of all organized religions as the basis for morality and to adopt the solid foundation that has always been (and continues to be) readily available.<br /><br />To see this “solid foundation for morality” more clearly, consider again the obvious fact that, as with any value, moral value (“the extent to which an action is right or wrong”) can be judged only with respect to some objective. In addition, consider again the obvious fact that the prime objective of all life is to continue living. Therefore, the obvious sound basis for morality for any life form is, was, and always will be the extent to which any act promotes its survival.<br /><br />All life knows that the basis of its morality is for it to continue living – although it stretches the meaning of the word ‘know’ to say that vegetation “knows” what it’s doing; instead, its behavior is genetically “programmed”. Similarly, from programming in their DNA, all animals instinctively know that “the good” is to survive. For social animals, experience has given survival advantages to genes that programmed behavior that most humans describe as “moral”. Thus, as Michael Shermer wrote in his 2004 book <span style="font-style: italic;">The Science of Good and Evil</span> (pp. 31–32):<br /><blockquote><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">The following characteristics appear to be shared by humans and other mammals, including and especially the apes, monkeys, dolphins, and whales: </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peace making, deception and deception detection, community concern and caring about what others think about you, and awareness of and response to the social rules of the group…</span><br /></blockquote>For humans, however, with our greater mental awareness (especially of the future and of possible consequences of our actions), many of our moral choices require more thought than just relying on our genetic programming (i.e., relying solely on our instincts). Thereby, in particular circumstances, humans can find it difficult to identify and choose the most moral act. Consequently, many humans (apparently the majority of humans), finding it difficult to decide for themselves, seek “moral absolutes”, applicable for all circumstances, commonly hawked by their local clerics.<br /><br />Yet, all the gibberish promoted by clerics notwithstanding, only one “moral absolute” appears to be available for all circumstances. It’s simply this: to ascertain “the extent to which an action is right or wrong”, we should always use our brains as best we can – which of course includes evaluating all relevant and reliable data, seeking advice from contemporaries and wisdom from the past, and attempting to foresee possible consequences of our actions.<br /><br />That the desire to continue living is the basis of morality is, admittedly, a mundane result (using the word ‘mundane’ both in the sense of being ‘obvious’ and in the sense of being “earthly, rather than spiritual”). It also seems mundane to conclude that the only known moral absolute for humans is for us always to use our brains as best we can. Nonetheless, those mundane results are extremely important.<br /><br />They lead, for example, to the obvious conclusion that wrestling the specification of morality from the clerics of the world, returning it to the people, explaining to them that the prime goal against which morality is to be judged is simply the goal of trying to solve human problems more intelligently (or words to that effect), and thereby making morality mundane, worldwide, would be highly moral. On my moral scale, I put it at a +9.<br /><br /><a href="http://zenofzero.net/">www.zenofzero.net</a><div><br /></div>A. Zoroasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07473665017762017780noreply@blogger.com0