Neanderthals RULE!

http://article.nationalreview.com/438941/ban-the-burqa/claire-berlinski?page=1

I am pro burqa and pro yarmulke – Excerpt: …she had experienced a religious revelation. She described this in terms anyone familiar with William James would recognize. She began veiling to affirm her connection with the Ineffable. “Every time I look in the mirror,” she said, “I see a religious woman looking back. It reminds me that I’ve chosen to have a particular kind of relationship with God.”

It is interesting to note that William James was the last world renowned pre-Freudian psychologist. His brother was the famous novelist Henry James. Teachers used to smirk and observe that William James was the better writer and Henry James was the better psychologist but I think they said that just to be cute. Sometimes people do that sort of thing, I mean, say something not because it is true or because they believe it but simply because it is different and controversial.

Also, William James observed that more alcoholics have been redeemed through religious programs (like AA’s higher power, but AA did not come into existence until 1935 after William James death in 1910) than by any medical or scientific or psychoanalytic means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James

Speaking of morally superior, I think GW Bush would have been morally superior if he and followed that Jesus fellow’s advice about loving one’s enemy and turning the other cheek rather than declaring war on terrorism. And I think it would be morally superior to not make a fuss about how many Mosques are built and where. I mean we are supposed to practice freedom of religion and separation of church and state. So if everyone decided to convert to Islam tomorrow and amend the Constitution to allow sharia law, then that would be as American as apple pie.

France is outlawing burqa, crucifix, veil, turban, yarmulke,… I sure see a lot of turbans and yarmulkes in NYC.

The Truman doctrine was supposed to stop the spread of Communism. That worked out well, didn’t it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truman_Doctrine

Ruth:

I’m just addressing the issue in general, I think of interest to others. Some years ago, I noticed something very significant in a church magazine, in an article about history. It said that in 1790 or so, the Presbyterian Church here in America rewrote its official doctrinal statement and removed a phrase that really summed up the last few hundred years of what had been learned in Europe. In a list of “sins,” they took out “tolerating error.” Error itself might still be a sin, but to allow your neighbor to err was no longer a sin.

It struck me as significant because the last rounds of that battle of conscience had been fought here in the colonies, when the Puritans of New England and the Anglicans of Virginia both persecuted Quakers, who settled in the middle to try to create a buffer zone. The Constitutional Convention was held in the capital city of the Quakers, and they were very influential. I think that it was their pressure that created this final victory of the idea of tolerance. It took European Christians about a thousand years to come to that conclusion, and after a lot of religious wars. We’ve fully believed in religious tolerance ever since.

But Islam didn’t go through the same process and while many individuals are very tolerant, of course, the official doctrine hasn’t changed. We’ve got to be careful of applying the same rules of perfect openness to a culture that will outlaw ours if given the chance. It’s like the Moriori people who didn’t believe in warfare, and were slaughtered or enslaved by the invading Maori. We believe in ordinary warfare, but not in intolerance, and yet without some defense, we’ll lose the right to be tolerant entirely. A real cultural dilemma.

William:

I don’t believe in much of anything. I will be dead soon so it doesn’t matter much to me what happens. I know that our sun will become a white dwarf in 500,000 years and when it does then everything disappears; Plato, Shakespeare, Marx, Jefferson, the whole works. So once that happens and it will happen, then what did it all mean?

I think the Neanderthal had it right for the first 400,000 years with anarchy and green technology but homo sapiens came along and messed everything up.

If everyone decided to convert to Islam TOMORROW, then our policy of religious freedom should give them freedom to do so, and if they wanted to gradually change the laws to conform to sharia then our government “of the people and by the people” would certainly allow that. I mean we outlawed alcoholic beverages and then we un-outlawed it. The way I see it America pioneered in the technology of mass destruction. Dresden was genocide. Hiroshima, Nagasaki was genocide. Just google on TOM TANCREDO NUKE and watch the 30,000 links that pop up.

I don’t think it makes any difference if someone builds a mosque near ground zero. America can’t even rebuild ground zero after a decade.

If America were really a “Christian Nation” then the one thing they would outlaw for certain is divorce, because Jesus specifically said that a man shall not put his wife away except for reason of adultery.

Ancient Rome was shocked to see the state religion abandoned for some new-fangled religion called Christianity and even believed that such impiety was causing the fall of the empire which I assume is why Augustine wrote “The City of God” to explain that the empire was not crumbling because the ancient gods and goddesses were being neglected.

If Islam is really an ideological threat then the only permanent solution is genocide. But I honestly believe that if tomorrow you got rid of all religions and ethnicities except for ONE (for the sake of argument lets keep the Catholics, or if you prefer, the Unitarian Universalists.) I say that within a century or two they would have sectarian divisions like the big-endians and the little-endians of Jonathan Swift’s Gullivers Travels and we would all be killing each other all over again.

I figure this world and humanity is doomed. I think that global warming is irreversible. I think that a shortage of water will soon be a bigger problem than a shortage of fossil fuels. And I think that human beings will never stop killing and torturing each other long enough to unite and solve any real problems.

But, perhaps I am wrong.

What I really think is that males should be forbidden by law from going topless in public. It is shameless the way males expose themselves and it offends the Almighty! Democracy demand equal treatment under the law so if females cannot go topless then males cannot go topless.

But it you think it will help you can outlaw the yarmulka and turban.

I have suddenly had a flash of illumination! We are all in essential agreement. The New Testament says the world will end. The Old Testament says the world will end. The Qur’an says the world will end. The Hindu scriptures say the world will end. The Buddhist scriptures say the world will end. Stephen Hawking says the world will end. We all believe the same thing! We just can’t agree on a dress-code.

There is actually something called “The Sayings of Mohammad” and I have a paperback copy. I can find it and give you the ISBN number. These are not in the Qur’an but are preserved in oral tradition. Mohammad said that one day the Ka’aba will be destroyed by an Abyssinian called “old skinny legs.”

The Romans destroyed the one and only Jewish temple in Jerusalem and subsequently Judaism evolved and changed. So, if the Ka’aba is destroyed then the fifth pillar of Islam, the Hajj, will be impossible and then Islam will change and evolve just like Judaism did. And since Mohammad predicted it, it must be halal.

Oscar Wilde can resist everything but temptation and we can tolerate anything except intolerance.

++++++

There is only one question you can hear which will guarantee your safety. If the day comes that you can go anywhere in the world and say “Islam, Muslim, Qur’an” and everyone looks at you in puzzlement and says “What’s that?” then and only then will you be safe. Well, at least, you will be safe from the ideological threat of Islam until some other religious or political extremism arises. If you simply outlaw burqa and mosque it will all simply go underground and while underground it will organize a resistance and wait for a time to strike back with an even greater vengeance.

I can imagine an amusing tale of a town which is regularly attacked by packs of rabid dogs so they decide that the solution is to outlaw barking and growling. But of course our town is a very proper democracy so the barking/growling ordinance is only passed after much due process with many stump speeches.

It is utterly amazing that the greatest superpowers in the world deploying the most advanced weapons have not been able to conquer Afghanistan. Some suspect that Russia used neutron bombs. Osama bin Laden is still free even though there is a huge bounty on his head.

The BBC produced a television drama of terrorists exploding a dirty bomb. At the end of the movie they confront one of the captured terrorists and show him photos of his wife and children, pleading for some information. He had a great answer. He said something like “these reprisals only make you grow weaker but they make us grow stronger.”

Karen Armstrong’s paperback “A Short History of Islam” shows that in only a century after the death of Prophet Mohammad Muslim forces had reached Jerusalem. The crusades could not save Constantinople from becoming Istanbul. Afghan goat-herders keep superpowers at bay.

I honestly think Islam has a chance at world domination by a process of gradual attrition over centuries, one suicide bomber at a time.

Just suppose for the sake of hypothetical argument that I am right and that Islam will triumph over all in a world wide Ummah under Sharia law. Suppose the only alternative is genocide, ethnic cleansing, using some new environmentally safe weapon of mass destruction which can totally wipe out an entire nation of people but leave the environment unharmed. Then would you play the ethnic cleansing card. I mean one decade of unspeakable heinous sin will buy you a 1000 years of peace and human progress. Now the since of the fathers are not visited upon the children so the future generations of that peaceful 1000 years would look back on the world’s terrible sin, shake their head, and say “yes it was brutal and unforgivable but it does seem that the end justifies the means.”

Or, suppose a virus could be genetically engineered to be specific only to those who lack something that is common to the Arab genome. The virus would not kill but merely renders its victims sterile. In fact, there are no outward symptoms of this virus except that its carrier victims are now infertile. Or if you prefer the virus would be specific only to those who POSSESS the Arab genetic trait. Such a biological weapon could be used by the Muslims against the infidels or by the infidels against the Muslims. This would be ethnocide without genocide. There would be no pain, no suffering, no murder. In 50 or 60 years the opposition would simply fade away.

Or, we could simply allow burqas and mosques and just wait patiently and see what happens. Perhaps they will all be seduced by the lure of Revlon and Jack Daniels and join our side!

++++

A Roman Catholic priest once asked a crusty old Irishman “What is your religion?” The old man replied “My religion is the oldest religion in the world. I try to be a nice guy.”

Moses said it all in a nutshell when he said “This day is placed before you good and evil, life and death. CHOOSE therefore life!” It is left to us as a choice.

Once an Imam was asked the following excellent question: “If Allah already knows from before the creation of the world which souls shall believe and be saved and which souls shall be damned, then why bother with the creation of the world? Why not just place the saved souls in eternal paradise and the damned souls in eternal torment?” The Imam explained “IF Allah were to place the damned souls directly into eternal torment they would complain for all eternity saying ‘But IF you had given me a chance, I would have become a believer.’ Hence it is necessary to allow the souls a time in the world so that their actions and deeds will convince them that they have earned their place in hell.”

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: