Hell.

“Over the past decade, ministers have used the justification of a supposedly overwhelming national terror threat to engage in an unprecedented power grab for the executive at the expense of many of our most important civil liberties. ” (The Independent)

In this country we are drifting towards a totalitarian state. These photographs constitute the excuse for this. My father firmly believed that totalitarian government was the ultimate end for left leaning governments and for right leaning governments too. All they needed , he said, was an excuse. He should know, he joined both the Communists and the Fascists at different times and was beaten up by both for saying things they didn’t like.

These fanatics represent a small part of Islam….
This programme is worth a listen

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00rdxlx

If that link does not work then you may be able to get a podcast from here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006s6p6

As ever, Religion causes the problems in the hands of extremists.

Gaelikaa…what is it that’s coming?

Ursula Reply:
March 27th, 2010 at 11:18

“Beyond belief” – Magpie, thanks for the link. As much as a thirty minute discussion can be it is most informative.

An observation: Unfortunate for the attentive listener – yet couldn’t help smile – that even highly educated and disciplined people will often interrupt and talk over each other instead of letting someone finish their idea, their sentence. No doubt an indicator of how high passions rise on the subject discussed.

U

gaelikaa Reply:
March 27th, 2010 at 11:29

Magpie – you’ll laugh at me I know, but what the heck! Jesus is coming back, that’s what! The Enemy’s lease on the world is reaching the expiry date. The real owner is returning.

magpie11 Reply:
March 27th, 2010 at 16:10

I’ve me those who say that he has already been back and went un-noticed. This was a tiny group of Sikhs who themselves admitted that their ideas were not mainstream. Who was he? Guru Nanak of course.

I won’t laugh at you but I would question the whole foundation of the Christian religion. Or any religion for that matter.

Rummuser Reply:
March 27th, 2010 at 20:47

This may come as a surprise to you Magpie, but I too question the foundation of any religion. I however allow for those in them to do as they wish but not try and convert others to their way of thinking saying that theirs is the only and correct way and all the rest are rubbish.

gaelikaa Reply:
March 29th, 2010 at 14:58

No, He was not Nanak. Not that Nanak wasn’t great in his own way of course.

Magpie, I’m not into ramming my religion down people’s throats. Take it or leave it, fine. But my faith is sincere, and I am not afraid to witness to it. Everywhere I go, I find people who are sceptical or cynical or whatever. I could have even gone that way owing to some disturbing formative experiences. I didn’t however, and that’s just the way I am.

magpie11 Reply:
March 29th, 2010 at 16:20

Re Nanak…his central idea was that God needs no prescribed religion, or so it seems to me…
My tongue was in my cheek….

Rummuser Reply:
March 27th, 2010 at 20:39

Magpie, I heard the BBC broadcast and the interview. Very proper and very politically correct. There are other immigrant religious groups in Britain and in Europe. Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, some minority Muslim sects like the Dawoodi Bhoras, Ismailis and may be some others too. All of them practice their religions without hindrance within Britain, build their places of worship and live peacefully. Which of them have resorted to this type of behaviour? I think that the right thinking people of all the world must understand that for economic reasons people migrate to the West and some, like those pictured in my post, simply want to subvert the system as they have no identification with national character and live on a system that breeds hatred and violence. If you like, I can recommend some good neutral reading by Muslims on how this happens. The so called secular Muslim like those interviewed on the BBC show, are scared to come out openly and admit that there is something seriously wrong and that something urgently needs to be done. Mere platitudes about the fringe minorities will not help. The fringe destroys and laughs.

magpie11 Reply:
March 28th, 2010 at 21:51

I’ll try this reply and see what happens.

magpie11 Reply:
March 29th, 2010 at 01:35

Well let’s see…this is on Chrome
And it went straight through and I’m editing it!

Ramana, I think you are quite right, although it seems to me that the full transition to Londinistan and Eurabia may not happen until after we are in the grave. The secular/atheist concept of religion precludes any notion of a religion having content, beliefs and values. To say that religions have real spiritual forces behind them is something that polite western religious people won’t even tolerate. Thus, there is little hope of things reversing until it is too late.

Rummuser Reply:
March 27th, 2010 at 20:30

I am doing my bit to see if we are not too late.

Ramana, I rarely condone “an eye for an eye” or the concept of taking revenge but that letter bomb “returned to sender” is so brilliant you might say it’s divine.

U

gaelikaa Reply:
March 27th, 2010 at 14:02

Ursula, you are correct. “Be not deceived God is not mocked. As a man sows so shall he reap.” (New Testament)

“Hell is other people” Kafka

Ursula Reply:
March 27th, 2010 at 19:53

Phill Smith, who knows what Kafka thought of his fellow human beings: One of his short stories converted Gregor Samsa into a beetle.

However, let’s protect copyright: “Hell is other people” was uttered by Jean-Paul Sartre. Whilst a questionable sentiment, at least he had some insight regarding the impact HE had on the people in HIS life.

U

Phill Smith Reply:
March 28th, 2010 at 04:10

I stand corrected

Rummuser Reply:
March 27th, 2010 at 20:29

Indeed.

If we react to these people in a negative manner we will lose that which we have more certainly than at the hands of our elected totalitarians.
It is surely the conundrum of, certainly British, Society that allows people the freedom to say these very things. If we withdraw that freedom we lose the battle.
We must not allow them to act on the words however.
Other than that, I have no answer.

As for their warped and twisted minds: do not all followers of religion take texts out of context at their own convenience.? Always assuming that the text is true and relevant of course.
People will always find excuses for their hatred and targets for their anger.

Looney Reply:
March 27th, 2010 at 23:02

Magpie11, I agree mostly with “do not all followers of religion take texts out of context at their own convenience.?” The Western atheist/secular intellectual derives three corollaries from this: 1) All religions are alike, 2) the Western atheist/secular intellectual gets to determine what a religion is really about, and 3) any unpleasant behavior by practitioners of a religion is due to people being religious and irrational, and not related to the inherent beliefs of the religion.

The problem is that the original premise is based on “all followers”, which is false. Certainly there will always be those who hijack religion (and atheist secularism) for their personal ends, inciting people to violence; exploiting and abusing what they purport to be promoting. We cannot go on to deduce that Mohamed and Jesus teach essentially the same thing.

magpie11 Reply:
March 28th, 2010 at 00:07

This could develop into a long long debate: I note that you limit the atheist secular intellectual thing to being western.

I would not suggest hat I am in the intellectual part of that but I pretty much came to the conclusion that “religions are all alike” all by myself. They are alike in that they offer their followers some degree of certainty as an emotional. psychological crutch. How they define that crutch may be different. They also tend to develop from some person’s need to control others lives. Jesus did not found Christianity as it is today. That was a political decision later on in the development of the religion. It is also based on overt myth making by different groups of people. Close study of the New Testament shows up many clues and contradictions.

As for Mohammed, I have had it suggested that he was a person trying to practise Christianity (this from Muslim intellectuals IIRC) and being persecuted for it so he reacted…and so on.

My problem is that religions are formalisations of sets of myths, pure and simple.

BTW, I have no faith (religious that is) but would never seek to prevent a person from speaking about his or her beliefs. I might well seek to point out the inconsistencies, fallacies and lies on which they construct their beliefs. And to a man/woman/ person they will always end up by declaring that, “It’s all a matter of faith which you (i.e. me) do not understand.” at which stage we must agree to differ but still care about each other. often they will say yes to that but suggest that I “open my heart. and that they will pray for me.

But they’re still wrong!

Looney Reply:
March 28th, 2010 at 01:28

First, I must congratulate you on forming views independent of all the propaganda out there. You are probably the only one on the planet!

To go to the example first, both Jesus and Mohamed can claim persecution. Yet Mohamed led 19 military campaigns (according my atheist history book), while Jesus led none. Mohamed’s followers killed and forced submission (hence the word ‘Islam’), while Jesus’ followers healed and offered people a promise. Is this the same?

My additional challenge to you is that atheist secularists both create more myths and are more susceptible to myths than religious types. Washington Irving invented the myth of the flat earth theory, and this was put into textbooks by atheist scholars and taught to school children around the world. The anthropogenic global warming myth is the latest atheist myth to be discredited, yet there are thousands in between, like the BBC repeat of the discredited myth of an advanced Islamic Civilization, which was also dreamed up by atheists in the 19th century, or the myth that the Crusaders were as violent as the Jihaders (another 19th century myth). Many of these myths were created for the sole purpose of drawing people to a conclusion that “all religious are alike” and “religion is about myth”, so that waverers could be drawn into the myths of atheist secularism. At some point, however, the myth of the myth must be set aside so we can start looking at what people actually believe and how what motivates them, don’t we?

This is all V-e-r-y I-n-t-e-r-e-s-t-i-n-g. Use a German accent (Laugh-In, old time TV). I’m learning. Thanks!

Magpie and Looney (seeing your names in close proximity I’ve just realised what a fine pair you’d make as a double act): Leaving the intricacies of your standpoints aside, two points with regards to your exchange to be drawn attention to:

Firstly, isn’t it wonderful that we now live at a time when we can voice views as diverse as both of yours without you, Magpie, being marched to the next lamp post?

Secondly, isn’t it amazing how much time and thought atheists are forced to give to matters of religion?

U

I have reconsidered my Rush Limbaugh comment. I am not a fan of Rush and he did make the absurd statement that he would leave the country if health care passed here. And … right before coming to this forum, someone in another forum had attacked me gratuituously from the American political right. My dander was up!

In any case, long story short, my comment when I re-read it is immoderate and a cheap shot. It does not add to the discussion in a positive way. It is returning fire for fire, usually a destructive activity.

Ramana, you are correct in your statement that we are pikers when it comes to hatred. There is outrageous behavior taking place in America right now, but it is not at the level of the situation you face with Pakistan. Nonetheless, it can use some significant improvement and that must begin with ratcheting down the rhetorical heat.

Ursula Reply:
March 29th, 2010 at 04:45

Conrad, your sentiment of “ratcheting down the rhetorical heat” is a commendable suggestion, worth considering. However, it’s not within human nature to shut up and just be. If it were we wouldn’t have dictatorships, bleeping sheep following the leader, and allow “holy” men to send their flock to slaughter.

Sometimes I think we should all be given ear plugs at birth.

U

PS As an aside: It irritates the hell out of me that we have allowed institutions (ie the church) to play on people’s fears, to keep people in check, toeing the line (“Wait till your FATHER comes home”). This linking in with Magpie’s observation that religion serves as some sort of psychological crutch so we don’t feel frightened in the dark.

Looney, to your credit you don’t shy away from discussion as so many do.

However, the sock of your argument has a lot of holes not all of which I can darn. To start with: Atheism is not a religion. The former being defined as disbelief in the existence of god(s); the latter being the belief in and worship of god(s). Atheism as an ideology? No. More a system of reasoning.

“Atheism a purely amoral religion”? Looney, what are you talking about? Just because an atheist isn’t worshipping at the altar of some arbitrary god does not make him/her “amoral”. Jesus Christ, as so many philosophers, appealed to the good in all of us, that which makes us human. That he and his ideas were hijacked by an organisation called “church” was not his intention. He’d be the first to walk out of one those money making hypocritical “houses of god” as beautiful, architecturally, as many of them are.

Where Darwin comes into your argument I do not know, neither does it matter. I read your copy several times but am either too tired or too dense to make much sense of what you are saying. That’s atheists for you: They do not comprehend any of what is obvious to the worshipper.

As to abortion, a most contentious subject: I take it, following your reasoning, you are also in favour of the approach of the “Magdalene Sisters” in Ireland back in the Fifties and Sixties (different orders in other countries). For our sins we must be punished and babies be taken away from their grieving mothers, given away for adoption, because the bastards had misfortune to be born out of wedlock. Hail God, the all avenging, all forgiving God.

As not to exhaust Ramana’s space on his blog I will copy on my own blog what I recently had to say on the subject from a purely secular, nay, make that human, point of view.

U

Looney Reply:
March 30th, 2010 at 04:40

Ursula, I have been anxious to see your blog for awhile, but not yet seen the link! Can you put the link up? Somehow I suspect Ramana isn’t worried about running out of blog space …

The Christian viewpoint is that all humans are biologically programmed for religion, because this is the way God created us. The atheist view is that religion evolved, but the conclusion is exactly the same: Religion is something that must be part of the genetic makeup of humans, because all aboriginal civilizations around the world are religious. Thus, the standard view of religion is fundamentally flawed: We don’t choose a religion like choosing a car, or choose not to have a car. Instead, it is only a matter of which direction the religion is directed. It can also be directed towards vice, materialism, glory, or other things. An atheist can’t escape from her DNA!

Ursula Reply:
March 30th, 2010 at 08:42

Looney, if “all humans are biologically programmed for religion” that piece of research and its result must have passed me by. It also means that my son is the exception to the rule.

I do not dispute that we have a great need to belong, that we, specks in the cosmos, frightened of unseen forces and with the ever present threat of death winking at us, want that “god almighty” father to look after us. Just as we hoped our fathers would when we were little (as an aside: Why is it usually fathers who abandon home and hearth leaving mothers holding the baby? Even Jesus asked, when nailed to the cross, why his father had forsaken him. Anyway, that’s another subject.)

Despite the fact that I do not believe that God created the world in seven days flat, that I find the institution ‘church’ bigoted, that I have never been to confession because I really do not need fellow men to absolve me of any of my sins, that I do not believe in an afterlife, that if there is heaven and hell I’d rather go to hell since so much more entertaining, I’d describe myself a Christian. But that’s like saying I am a European – a mere description of cultural background and fundament – nothing more. As I worship at the shrine of many a philosopher so I admire the man Jesus Christ and his teachings. What I despair with at times – and believe me I went to Sunday School against my father’s wishes – is that religion has been converted into a weapon of mind destruction (please forgive this truly awful pun).

And yes, despite my rationale, there have been times in my life when I howled in the middle of a field, appealing to the only force (ie God) I could think of to help me out of a shithole. It was one of the biggest insights in my young years how one always turns to God when in dire need. But that does not mean he exists. When my son was born I made a deal with God. So far, the favour has been granted. Despite the fact that I do not “believe” in him HE has been most generous.

It’s a god almighty subject, Looney. It also is a most fascinating subject. I suppose I hold with my mother who taught me that God is the good in us (the true shrine at which we should worship) but that the organisation of “church”, particularly that of Catholicism, is not worth the collection box going round at the end of service.

As an aside: Did you know that here, in the UK, and such is the corporate power of the institution, parents will suddenly go to church every Sunday just so that the little apples of their eyes will be accepted at a GOOD local school which happens to be run by the Church of England? It’s disgraceful. What does that teach their children? That lying through your teeth will get you through life? Marvellous. Just what Jesus Christ had hoped for.

Anyway, yes, the link to my blog. It’s “bitchontheblog.wordpress.com”. To understand the background to the rather crude name I chose you will have to go back to my very first blog post in December “Burnt at the stake”.

Going back to our discussion. Whether we agree with the perceptions of our fellow men or not: Most important and comforting to me when channels of communication are kept open, when exchanges take place. That way we learn and – to put a truly ghastly pink hue on it – we are on the stairway to whatever is our heaven.

U

Rummuser Reply:
March 30th, 2010 at 17:24

Let me throw my two bits in. “A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.” By that definition, and how atheism is now being propagated, I conclude that atheism too has become a religion and like some other religions, intolerant of other religions. There are high priests, books being published, the inernet being used to propagate the ism and so on and so forth and so, I must concede that while the individual atheist may not think that he is a member of a religious order, the movement itself has become one.

Looney is right. Go ahead, use the space for as much as you want. I find the discussions very interesting.

Looney Reply:
March 31st, 2010 at 09:57

Ursula, your story gets a lot of sympathy from me. I am one of those who would recommend flogging of deadbeat or abusive fathers.

There is something related to Ramana’s original topic that your comment reminds me of: Of all the religious educational institutions of the world, the Church of England seems to be one of the most efficient in producing atheists! (OK, there are a number of other post-Christian religious schools that are at the same level of efficiency.) My theory is that the leaders of the church don’t really believe what they teach, but perhaps you have some more insights? On the other hand, one of the least efficient religious educational institutions for producing atheists is a Madrasah, which focuses on rote memory and recital of the Koran, with an emphasis on proper pronunciation of the Arabic.

Rummuser Reply:
March 31st, 2010 at 11:03

What an insight and observation! Could economic depravity, as identified by Friedman be the reason for the latter’s success?

On reflection, how else could this topic be? When the infinite – or, at least a universe with ultimately unknown limits – is viewed from a finite perspective, personal opinion will prevail. With the body of our knowledge being contained in what can be conceived as an ever expanding bubble, that very expansion also expands its outer surface and that surface is the immediately conceivable unknown.

Is empiricism the ultimate arbiter? Then how can we ever get there other than dying or experiencing the Second Coming? Or … are there readers here who have had actual experiences that provide direct evidence (something that I do NOT reject, by the way). If you have direct evidence one way or the other, is that evidence of a personal nature only, or is it something that can be shared undeniably?

Is logic and reason the ultimate arbiter? Then, are we making reason itself into the new god?

It seems to me that acceptance of the mystery is inherent in honest reflection upon that which is beyond us. Also, it might lead us to acceptance of the ultimate ambiguity, which might lead us to greater tolerance were it not for our fearful natures, our survival instincts.

Apologies for joining in late. But here is my predicament, when we see Islamophobia, who are we phobic about? Having read the quran, not in entirety but in bits and pieces of course (in relevancy to cases involving Mohammedan law), I can say that the language employed is annoyingly metaphorical and speaks only in analogies. To find fault with the origins of Islam itself is again a contentious matter for the prevailing situations in the Arab society back then warranted a strict order from which lay no deviation. The question is if these protestors are the result of the culture or the culture’s failure to think analogically and adapt into modern pluralistic tendencies?

Looney Reply:
April 5th, 2010 at 20:02

Ashok, a common ploy here in the US – especially California – is to argue that Islam is a culture, but Christianity is a religion. Of course any religion should affect culture, but this is lost to the law professors. The end result is that Islam is coddled under multiculturalism, to the extent that we have California government sponsored Islamic charter schools here. Flipping it around to Christianity (or Hinduism or whatever), and the legal reasoning immediately flips to an insistence that these are religions, not cultures, so they cannot have their own schools.

The first generation of (sometimes Al Qaeda connected) government funded Islamic charter schools were shut down. A second generation which is a little more subtle is now being funded to teach Arabic and other cultural elements, but doesn’t involve Imams as teachers.

Rummuser Reply:
April 6th, 2010 at 21:11

Looney, this is what scares me. This topic was discussed with Ashok personally by me last Sunday and I have referred him to some good reading to understand what is going on.

Rummuser Reply:
April 6th, 2010 at 21:13

Ashok, Looney’s response should answer you better than anything that I can offer.

This is it every action has its reaction Islam means peace so if some one goes and brake the peace it means his foundation of islam is not correct if the people dont brake the heart of other people there will be no problem in this world.