Page 28 of 33

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Posted: 05 Feb 2017 01:57
by Summerlander
Secular humanism isn't solely an American phenomenon. I would argue that Britain (where I live) can be academically more secular than the States. Remember, your currency quotes 'In God We Trust' while our ten pound sterling honours Charles Darwin with a picture of his bust. :)

I would also be careful about stereotyping secular humanists as defenders of Islam. Maybe that's the case in America (particularly in the regressive Left and pseudo-liberal camp of cultural relativists) but, in here, we have the likes of A. C. Grayling, an atheist promoting humanism and also a religious critic, and also Maajid Nawaz, a Muslim promoting secular humanism and criticising the tenets of his own religion as he urges for its reform. 8-)

I agree that Islam is a more urgent problem but that still doesn't exempt Christianity from criticism---especially now that Mr. Trump ostensibly favours Christian fundamentalism and legislates anti-abortion! :roll:

Christianity is erroneously pro-life. Early abortions do not equal 'murder' as the embryos constitute half a dozen pluripotent cells. Scratch your nose right now. Did you do it? By Christian logic, you have just committed murder by scraping far more cells from your nozzle with your index finger.

If you get a chance, ask your president what happens to women who are impregnated by rapists. :geek:

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Posted: 05 Feb 2017 10:54
by Pilgrim
The political posturing in the US regarding abortion, on both sides, is for the purpose of negotiation. Following the reasoning that allows any abortion to be okay, it is bizarre that younger gestational age can have protection after delivery, yet older babies in the womb can be killed. Americans, on average, want to allow the mother legal abortion through about five months. Opinions for or against early abortions simply do not matter because they will occur whether legal or not.

And, based on original design, each State would set its own rules to govern. If I recall correctly, witches preferred to live in Rhode Island in early America because the predominate form of Christianity there emphasized individual religious liberty. The current method where the Supreme Court "interprets" the Constitution to legislate, effectively, on abortion is wrong and can be overturned. If people largely want the issue of abortion to be determined at the national level, to be equal across all states, it would simply require an amendment to the Constitution (which also requires 3/4 of states to approve).

The preference for the words of Muhammed over the words of Jesus among the secular in America is obvious. This is very odd in light of direction for a world-wide Islamic kingdom, with terrorism. It is evidence of bias in guise of a free thinking, rational environment. The hatred for Israel and Christians, as spiritual Israel, is yet another coincidence of biblical prophecy.

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Posted: 05 Feb 2017 15:43
by Summerlander
Pilgrim wrote:The political posturing in the US regarding abortion, on both sides, is for the purpose of negotiation.

There is no negotiation if the government takes one side over the other. Pro-life means women have no say over what happens to their bodies or their lives if they fall pregnant unwillingly. The stance that Trump's government takes is that they can't even take the morning-after pill.

Pilgrim wrote:Following the reasoning that allows any abortion to be okay, it is bizarre that younger gestational age can have protection after delivery, yet older babies in the womb can be killed. Americans, on average, want to allow the mother legal abortion through about five months. Opinions for or against early abortions simply do not matter because they will occur whether legal or not.

There is no reasoning behind any abortion to be okay. First of all, abortions are risky and there are only so many a woman can have; if an abortion is the only solution to an 'accident', it should be done as quickly and as early as possible---preferably at the embryonic stage when cells have only potential to become anything and are as conscious as the cells you scrape off your nose. (Meaning that it would be more unscrupulous to kill a fly as these have far more cells in their brains alone.)

Opinions on abortion matter because we are taking about people's lives. Secret abortions under a pro-life government will be far more dangerous than ones legally executed by qualified doctors. Have you ever heard of Vera Drake?

Pilgrim wrote:The preference for the words of Muhammed over the words of Jesus among the secular in America is obvious. This is very odd in light of direction for a world-wide Islamic kingdom, with terrorism. It is evidence of bias in guise of a free thinking, rational environment. The hatred for Israel and Christians, as spiritual Israel, is yet another coincidence of biblical prophecy.

Christianity and Judaism are partly responsible for Islam because the latter is a plagiarism of the former. :)

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Posted: 06 Feb 2017 04:25
by Pilgrim
The issue, very plainly, my friend is this. At some point in human development, it must be decided when the young has, itself, rights under our Constitution.

Society could decide a mother has the right to a trial period after a baby is born, within which time elect to kill it. My point is that there is a more urgent concern than each emotional opinion. It is lawlessness and tyranny.

The fallacy of concern for liberal causes is that they have been promoted with blatant disregard for legal basis. It promotes anarchy. Judges/presidents pretend that words of our laws and Constitution do not matter. "Interpretation" remains the excuse and basis that all can see is folly and merely an attempt to subvert the legislative process.

I have not listened to the recent rhetoric, but Trump campaigned on States deciding for themselves on abortion rules. State laws will and do reflect their respective peoples. (I would hate to live in California, but it makes many happy.)

If abortion is Constitutional right, then make the Constitution say it. It is not even hard to use words to express intent.

There is no reason that a government that makes rules of, by, and for the people, and in accordance with our elected representatives, should exhibit tyranny. The liberal movement in America, likewise, is positioning itself as guardians of free speech, as long as your speech agrees with them.

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Posted: 07 Feb 2017 20:10
by Summerlander
Some valid points regarding people's interpretation of free speech. But there is overwhelming evidence showing that Trump played his cards right against Hillary whilst also employing demagogic contradictions.

We live in a world where most people are dogmatically brainwashed from birth and are not used to thinking for themselves. Many of us find the scientific method boring despite the fact that it aims to get to the bottom of things. People disagree on what's good and bad and, sometimes, are willing to compromise and take risks with their leaders even if at least one proposition for change seems attractive. We've seen that happen with the rise of Nazism in Germany prior to WWII.

So what's the solution? Work towards tyranny, consensus, truth or, as some have proposed for different reasons and unreasons, annihilation?

'Out out brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more; it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.'

Above, William Shakespeare, through Macbeth, expresses his existential nihilism. I can relate to it but wouldn't go as far as advocating suicide like the philosophy of Hegesias of Cyrene just because there is more misery in life than fleeting pleasures.

One can derive a great sense of wonder and marvel at the evolutionary apperception of lifeforms, even those that afflict us and threaten our species with a pandemic.

Yes, the world can be beautiful but there are real horrors to be tackled if we are to survive and make the most of our intrinsically meaningless existence. We can, as Sartre pointed out, invent meaning and find purpose. Survival should rank the highest if we are to enjoy this experience until finally no problems---or anything for that matter---are perceived at all.

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Posted: 08 Feb 2017 04:45
by Pilgrim
I simply and actually do not believe that I have intrinsically meaningless existence. I have tried to understand your worldview. It does not account for the data that I know.

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Posted: 08 Feb 2017 22:31
by Summerlander
Which is?

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Posted: 10 Feb 2017 19:05
by Summerlander
'In all the ages the Roman Church has owned slaves, bought and sold slaves, authorized and encouraged her children to trade in them. Long after some Christian peoples had freed their slaves the Church still held on to hers.. If any could know, to absolute certainty, that all this was right, and according to God's will and desire, surely it was she, since she was God's specially appointed representative in the earth and sole authorized and infallible expounder of his Bible. There were the texts; there was no mistaking their meaning; she was right, she was doing in this thing what the Bible had mapped out for her to do. So unassailable was her position that in all the centuries she had no word to say against human slavery. Yet now at last, in our immediate day, we hear a Pope saying slave trading is wrong., and we see him sending an expedition to Africa to stop it. The texts remain: it is the practice that has changed. Why? Because the world has corrected the Bible. The Church never corrects it; and also never fails to drop in at the tail of the procession - and take the credit of the correction. As she will presently do in this instance.'

~Mark Twain

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Posted: 11 Mar 2017 02:22
by Summerlander
Purim celebrates the deliverance of Jews from butchery by Haman, the minister of an anti-Semitic Persian emperor who was hanged for plotting to carry out a pogrom. At least they recognise that Mordecai was a great human being, who refused to bow down to Haman and foiled his plan to massacre the Jews. Such strange things Jewish people celebrate but it's better than celebrating the birth of a carpenter---and possible ominous cult leader---we are not even sure existed. :mrgreen:

Who said I only criticise Islam? :twisted:

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Posted: 11 Mar 2017 18:25
by Summerlander
The idea that racial purity is advantageous, superior, and something to be revered by all, is, as we shall see, grossly misguided. Hitler was repellently wrong in his actions, and the Aryan race concept was fallacious as well as defiant to scientific grounds. In Europe, the idea of pure races is absurd. Racial purity is long gone, and there is no evidence that being of pure race is advantageous either. If we are going to study pure races, we should look at Pygmies; the Hottentots; and the Australian Aborigines. The Tasmanians were probably even purer and they are now extinct. None of these cultures are particularly brilliant and one begins to wonder where this pure breed as a great boon malarkey comes from. In contrast, the Ancient Greeks are a conjugation of northern barbarians and an indigenous population: the Athenians and Ionians, who were the most civilised, were also the most mixed. As the philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell once put it, the supposed merits of racial purity are, it would seem, wholly imaginary.

It is perfectly okay to deplore Hitler’s Nazism, but, I can’t fathom youngsters who do this whilst looking up to Malcolm X (born Malcolm Little) and the views he held for most of his life. Anyone who looks into the life of this plainspoken Islamic minister comes to realise that the man was fighting fire with fire (something he didn’t deny when he publicly stated that racialists only understand the language of extremism and that is the language he advocated in order to obtain the desired respect): an extreme position he was prompted to hold after what had happened to his family as a young black boy (victimisation by white racist groups), and later to sustain as a popular zealot as well as a bit of a demagogue.

Malcolm X had spent many years not being much of a human rights activist as much as he was a black rights activist (or black nationalist). He was involved in a campaign which preached racialism as well as Christian infamy. Islam was commendable as the only true revelation. Malcolm X once advocated the racist proposition that black people were superior to white people, and asseverated that the latter were created by an evil scientist called Yakub (the Bible’s Jacob, some say), as the pseudo-scientific belief. And the extent of his bigotry as a member of the Nation of Islam didn’t stop here. For someone who was an Islam (meaning “peace”) convert, he had no qualms about endorsing violence and any means necessary. (Although I do admire his contentions against white racialists evinced at the Oxford Union debate and his contempt for the wishy-washy “love thy enemy” maxim proposed by the opposition. Let’s not forget, however, that he had been a strong racialist himself.)

The religious trump card Malcolm X wielded helped to persuade many and even forced the United States law enforcement to violate the First Amendment on more than one occasion. The most likable Malcolm X is the one who came to repudiate his extremism and disavowed the first brand of Islam he had subscribed to, and which he had used to his advantage and twisted peace of mind - religious nonsense he was taught whilst in prison. He was not that different from the lunatic Anjem Chowdery in hatemongering and sermonising the condemnable inequity, in the eyes of God, that was the victimisation of what he took to be the superior and righteous kind. The undeniable parallel between Malcolm X and Chowdery reflects in an appearance he made on a New York TV broadcast about the Nation of Islam, entitled, “The Hate That Hate Produced.”

It is ironic that in the end he was murdered by the very people whose beliefs he had ostensibly supported. Betrayal, it seems, was punishable by death, Islam’s price of apostasy as mandated by the Koran. The Nation of Islam had persuaded him to renounce his past, which in a sense he did in terms of criminal activity and lifestyle incompatible with the faith, even changing his name to an Arabic one (El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz). But he did not forget his roots when he adopted his famous nom de guerre, a renunciation of the nominal tag bestowed upon his subdued ancestors by a white “devil” called Little, and a reminder that where he truly came from cannot be known thanks to slavery.

In the Inquisition on Chicago’s City Desk broadcast, Malcolm X was questioned on the gratification he once expressed having learned that an Air France aeroplane crash had claimed the lives of over a hundred white Georgians. His inhumane response was a theistic one which did him no favours. The crash, according to him, was no coincidence, but rather, a demonstration of God’s wrath and divine punishment for the crime perpetrated by heavily armed, white police officers who shot at a group of innocent and unarmed black men in Los Angeles - also appending that the state of Georgia has the worst record for maltreatment of negros in the history of America (note the pretermission of Mississippi’s record in his pietistic delusion).

To claim with absolute certainty, without a shred of evidence, without convincingly ruling out coincidence, that the plane crash was an act of God (homicidal maniac) is unreasonable, dangerous, and is a premature rejection of the scientific inquiry that is more likely to reveal the real causes of such tragedy. Moreover, men who claim to know the mind of God are suspect and untrustworthy. Why would a perfectly benevolent deity permit the killing of innocent men in the first place? Also, according to Islamic belief, there is no free will as the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent Allah orchestrates everything - hence the term “Inshallah” (God willing). If this is so, how can a god be mad at his own doing? The faith affirms that the Creator is all-powerful and all-knowing, perfect by admission, and the disallowance of divine regretful mistakes logically follows thereof. No theology has been able to solve this riddle unless we assume the existence of a non-interfering deity, or the non-existence of one - two propositions which defy what Malcolm X believed in.

Malcolm X wanted the segregation of races and opposed the kind of freedom and community that Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela stood for. The FBI had even opened a file on him after he expressed his sympathy for Communism (a dig at the “racist” US government) and befriended Fidel Castro. What he finally concluded, after a degree of worldly experience and acquired wisdom, was that which should be known by everyone and which is plain to see (or should be): it doesn’t matter what race one is, what matters is what is in one’s heart, and actions speak louder than words. He called for the acknowledgement of racial equality in his speech, “The Ballot or The Bullet,” which still came with the threat of revolution if black people’s demands for the same rights as white people weren’t met.

In his eyes, the government was still very much indebted to Afro-Americans. He could not forget his family and his oppressed ancestors, and his sense of pride didn’t fail him when, upon a visit to Africa, he was quixotically referred to as “the son who has come home.” The following reminder would have been in place here: Malcolm X is American (born in Nebraska), not African. (Regardless of where his ancestors came from, for, in the same vein, we say that George W. Bush is American, not European.)

Malcolm X also saw Islamic absolutism as a solution to racial problems, though he overlooked the schismatic nature of Islam. His assassination, it is believed, was the price he paid for opposing the seditious Elijah Muhammad, a man he once regarded as “Allah’s messenger” alongside the founder of the Nation of Islam, whom he once believed to be God incarnate. His assassins were Muslim, but it is also said that the FBI might have been indirectly responsible for his death. (Uncover FBI agents had infiltrated the Nation of Islam and the operation had gone on long enough for one to wonder why they were unable to detect and foil assassination plans.) Finally, in a sense, a nation like the United States of America had someone like Malcolm X a long time coming, and indeed it might have taken someone as belligerent and as influential as him to enable a black man to reach Oval Office today.