Dr. Jordan Peterson’s lecture in Ottawa, 11th of March, 2017 – with intro by Mrs. Tammy Peterson

Act! For Canada’s Ottawa chapter brought the iconic Dr. Jordan Peterson to speak at the main branch of the Ottawa Library.

And, luckily, we got Mrs. Tammy Peterson (a powerful intellect and personality in her own right) to give us a glimpse into how their lives have been altered since Dr. Peterson’s pro-free-speech rant went viral in 2016:



Q&A videos to come as they are published.

For the record:  Dr. Peterson WILL go down in the history books as THE Socrates/Aristotle/St. Thomas of Aquinas/Jan Hus/Gogol/Jung/Nietzsche+++ of our era – all rolled into one.

Just saying…

…but history will prove me right.

He will have turned out to be THE most influential thinker of our era.  That much I am certain about.

Sargon of Akkad: The Seven Deadly Sins of Christianity and Islam, Compared

Christian equivalent of the ‘uncovered meat’ comment

The quote:

‘The 3AW Drive program, presented by Tom Elliott, was told the priest then said that if Ms Meagher had been “more faith-filled” she “would have been home in bed” and “not walking down Sydney Rd at 3am” when she was raped and murdered by Bayley in September 2012.’

The source is 3AW693NewsTalk.


Sure, when there is separation between the State and Christianity, Christianity does not commit as many atrocities as it used, before the split.  Because it lacks the power, not the will…

Many nice Christians I’ve met are genuinely good people – as are many nice Muslims I’ve met.

Christians are always stressing that theirs is a religion of love and inclusion and everything that is nice and non violent – and I am certain that they honestly believe it.

But the clerics know better.

The clerics are required to study their Holy Scriptures and believe what it says in them, regardless of the public mask worn in public.  And, every now and then, that mask slips…revealing the ugly truth beneath:  Christianity is, at its core, very misogynistic and just as destructive as every other religion.

Please, do give this some thought:  I do not write this lightly or reflexively.

Christianity is not the love-fest many Christians seem to think it is.  Biblical morality is deeply flawed.  After all, Muhammad had been a Christian convert and got much of his morality from Biblical teachings.  Sure, he built on them, from his own predilections, but there are common seeds shared between all three Abrahamic religions and, every now and then, we can glimpse the underlying truth…

…and I, for one, do not like what lies there!

Reply to ‘POD’ on ‘The Rise of the Christian Taliban?’

Sorry that this has to come as a post:  but, it would appear that due to WordPress’s most excellent latest updates, my response to POD’s comment is too long to post as a comment.

I guess I am just a little bit too verbose…but I hate being misunderstood, so I had to reply in some length.

The original post is here.

The comment by Peter O’Donnel is here.

My reply is below:

Thank you, Peter, for the long and well thought out reply.

Let me take things in order:

It seems to me that Christianity stopped committing atrocities whenever it became separated from actual real, hands-on political power.  I suspect that this will be true of all religions, secular (non-theistic) as well as theistic:  it is the real-world power combined with a firm and unshakable belief that one is not just correct, but ‘absolutely right’ that produces tyranny.

Since this piece focuses on Christians forming what they hope will be a religious terrorist organization, I naturally focused on Christianity.  That, plus Christianity martyred more of my family than any other doctrine – so it’s personal.  Of course Communism and Islam are greater threats now than Christianity has been in the 20th century, but my point was that regardless of which religion it is, it can and will be used by some to usurp power over others.  If we let them.

As for Jesus whispering similar things to people – I understand your belief in this, but there have been many wars between Christian sects all of whom truly and honestly believed to have Jesus’s true message while the other guys were idiots who were wrong.  Just consider the difference between Catholics and Evangelicals on the topic of evolution:  Catholics assert it is the means through which the various species were created by God while Evangelicals claim it is Devil’s teachings…

Solzhenitsyn:  good book, the Gulag Archipelago.  However, Solzhenitsyn himself longed for a totalitarian state himself – he just wanted the tyrant to be the Russian Orthodox Church instead of the Bolsheviks…which is really much the same thing.

As for Buddha:  he was not so much enlightened as cowardly.  He was in the perfect position to alleviate the suffering of the common folk, being a crown prince and all that.  Instead he went and sulked in a cave….and had the nerve to accept food from the poorest of the poor, who thought it was their duty to feed him even if it meant their own children starved.  Yeah, great spiritual enlightening there!

And before you go on about the accomplishments of monks who meditate:  please consider their diet and that their ‘enlightened meditation’ perfectly fits the symptoms of brain damage due to malnutrition.

I would not go looking for spiritual advice there!

As for God being the foundation of morality.  I did not intend to say that since God does not exist, it cannot be the foundation of morality.

I do not know whether god(s) exist or not or how we would define them.  I suppose I am very much an ignostic.  As such, I would need a clear definition, because different people mean different things when they say ‘God’ – and without knowing what they mean, I cannot possibly hold an opinion, much less knowledge, regarding their existence.  (Having said this, I find little to no evidence that supports the existence of Bible-definined deity, and consider monotheism to be the least credible of all the theological positions – but that is not the point here.)

What I was referring to is the continued assertion by Christian apologists that morality is whatever their God defines it to be.  So, if God commands genocide, then genocide is the moral thing to do.  If selling your daughter to her rapist for 40 silver pieces is what God says is the moral thing to do, then that is indeed the ‘moral’ thing to do.

In other words, many Christians argue that without God, there can be no morality.

Because ‘morality’ is obeying anything and everything that God commands.

I hold the diametrically opposite view:  ‘obedience’ to morality dictated from the outside (be it from a parent or God or teapot or whatever else) is exactly that.  Obedience.

And obedience, in my never-humble-opinion, precludes morality.

Morality is making decisions about what is right and wrong, what is good, bad or evil.  Weighing the consequences of one’s actions – then choosing what to do and living with it.  Morality is reasoning from the first principle of self-ownership and deriving the least incorrect course of action therefrom.

Morality is choosing one’s actions and accepting the responsibilities thereof.

Without  this decision making process, without internal locust of decision-making, there is no ‘morality’ – only obedience.

After all, how can you be held responsible for following someone else’s rules?

So, to my way of thinking, ‘obeying the word of God’ is abdicating ‘morality’ in favour of ‘obedience’.

Because doing the right thing for the wrong reason does not make you ‘moral’….it makes you, at best,  ‘accidentally right’.  Because you did not make the choice as to what the moral course of action would be – you simply obeyed the what somebody else decided is the moral course of action.

Sorry to go into this in so much detail, but as I did not make my position clear in the original post, I want to make sure to be more clear in my reply.

To recap:  I am not saying that morality cannot come from God since God does not exist:  I am saying that obeying somebody else’s rules about what is or is not moral is not morality itself, it is simply obedience because the locust of decision-making about what is or is not moral is external to one-self.  And I am perfectly aware that many religious people consider ‘morality’ to be ‘obeying God’s commands’ because they believe they are owned by God (in one manner or another).  I acknowledge their belief, but disagree with them.  Obedience is not ‘morality’ – or every puppy would be the most ‘moral’ creature in the world!

Which brings me to Mother effing Theresa.

Just this past weekend, I had a huge fight with a self-defined Christian apologist about Mother effing Theresa!

He had driven her around Montreal for a week and thought the sun shone from her behind!

Of course, being a fact-focused person, I know better than to buy in to the hollow propaganda about this profoundly evil person, who fetishized the suffering of others and maximized it in order to bring about her own salvation.  Her clinics did not differentiate between curable and incurable patients and used unsterilized needles for all…as well as denying even child-patients life-saving medical care and all painkillers….’cause, suffering would bring them closer to Jesus!

If the evil bitch Agnes (self-called Mother Theresa, which in itself should be a hint as she was NOT a mother and it is deeply immoral of her to usurp that noble title) is your example of the good things Jesus whispers to people, then you confirm my suspicion that all religions are, at their core, evil incarnate.  And that to get good people to commit evil deeds, all you need is religion….

Jesus himself:  perhaps we can leave discussion of the Nazarene and his teachings for another day…

As for giving God a chance:  I rather like Thor…and Tyr…and Hospodin and Baba Maja.  Have you given them a chance?

Why ‘moderate Muslims’ are silent

Sometimes, it takes me a really long time to ‘get’ even the most obvious of things – I know I am a very, very slow thinker.  But, I really ought to have seen this one clearly much, much earlier…

Like many others, I understand perfectly well that the first targets of fanatics within any group (and this applies not only to human groups) are the moderates within the ranks of that group.  This makes it that much more important for these moderates to speak up, in order to preserve themselves and protect their group from being overtaken by the extremists.

We have seen this though our history and the modern-day Muslim community is no different from the rest of us.

Yet, most of the voices we hear speaking ‘for the Muslims’ in today’s world are increasingly more and more only the radicalized ones…

In the past, I, too, have asked:  “Where are all the moderate Muslims and why are there so few of their voices being heard?”

Now, I think I’m beginning to understand…

In order to explain, please, indulge me in telling you a story or two.

When my mother was just an iddy-biddy baby, following WWII, the communists took over my homeland and stole her grandparents’ properties.  Her mom’s daddy made (and repaired) washing machines and her mom’s mommy operated a chain of stores that retailed them.  Her daddy was a top engineer at her grandpa’s factory, but had been born to a farming family.  Very successful farming family.  Her daddy’s mom was actually one of those women who went to work in the fields even in early stages of labour, went home to give birth – and returned to the fields afterwards.  No joke!  That is how hard they worked – and it showed:  the were known far and wide as THE people to go to for help with anything, without any obligations in return.

Yet, when the communists were in power, they labelled my grandpa as ‘a son of a kulak‘ – a deeply pejorative term in the 1950’s for a person living behind the Iron Curtain.

What I am trying to say is that even in one of the most industrialized countries in the world at that time (as Czech was), a country where people had unlimited ‘class mobility’ (my own grandfather had gone from ‘farmer’ to ‘engineer’ to ‘industrialist’), it took very little for his status to ‘devolve’ to that of ‘a son of a kulak’…

I must stress, before WWII, Czech was philosophically a fully ‘Western’ country, with emphasis on individual rights, even if located in Central Europe.

Yet, it took a few short years for the decades of individualism to devolve into judging a person by their parents’ and other relatives’ actions.  Guilty by blood association!

Now, please, let me jump to the second story.

This one takes place in Canada in the late 1990’s.  I had been running my own company and an ex-employee of mine approached me with a very unusual request…

When I had first hired him, I had not realized I already knew his father.  I had met him about 5 years earlier, at a party, under the table – we were both trying to sneak food to the host’s dog.  Anyhow, he was a capable young man and worked his way up, so that for about 5 years, he had been my second-in-command, and only left because his dream opportunity of working in the intelligence community presented itself.  By this point, I saw him as more of a brother to me than an employee and we not only parted on the best of terms, but remained close.

Which is why I was thrilled when he brought his girlfriend to meet me – and asked what my opinion of her was.  He thought she was ‘the one’, and I was happy to tell him I thought she was intelligent, beautiful and a perfect match for him.  They truly made a wonderful couple and I was very happy for them.

Yet, the path to their happiness was more complicated than I could have suspected!

When he had proposed to her, he came to me with a most unusual request:  would I please write a letter to the government of Iran to certify that I was still his employer, and that he had a sufficient income to comfortably support a wife and a family?

His fiance had not been born in Iran – she was born in Italy, to Iranian emigres.

Yet, if she were to get married without this certificate to the Iranian government that her fiance had sufficient income to properly support her and her children, the extended family she still had in Iran would be penalized for her parents’ acceptance of a marriage proposal without this document!!!

And, he did not want them to know of the particulars of his current work for the Canadian government, and so he had approached me for help…and as I had right away contracted him to do a ‘job’ for me, I could honestly write that letter – which I did.

Ok, enough stories…let us now look back to the origins of Islam.

Islam originated in Arabia in a deeply tribal society.

‘Right and wrong’ were not based on any absolute morality, but on tribal membership:  ‘right’ was what the leaders/members of your tribe deemed was ‘right’, ‘wrong’ was what their opponents/enemies deemed was’right’…

In such a tradition, ‘morality’ is a vastly different concept from what it is the ‘individualist’ tradition (though not nearly as different from the ‘communitarian’ tradition…which may explain the ‘socialist’ empathy for the Islamists):  rather than measuring ‘right vs.wrong’ based on some objective values (whatever their source), ‘right vs. wrong’ becomes ‘what gives an advantage to our group’ vs. ‘what gives an advantage to their group’.

In a tribal society, members of one clan/family are interchangeable for each other.

Aside:  Actually, that is where the ‘Western’ tradition of ‘bridesmaid’ and ‘groomsmen’  originates from:  if the bride or the groom were found to be unsuitable for the marriage union, the next-best-maid/groomsman’ would step in and replace them so that the clans could enter into a socioeconomic union through that particular marriage contract.

In such a society, if one member of a family/clan steps out of line, any other member of the family/clan can be harmed/killed in retaliation… because the bloodline’s ‘politics’ is answerable for by ALL the members of the bloodline.  Thus, if one of your relatives commits a crime, and cannot be caught, it is ‘fair’ for YOU to pay the price.  The ‘individuals’ are subordinate to the ‘clan’, instead of having individual rights and freedoms.

Now that I have set the stage, I need to go a bit into the history of the Koran.

Mohammed, the Islamic prophet, had, at one point, been excommunicated by both his mothers and his father’s Arabic clans.  Thus, Mohammed had been forced to seek shelter with other communities.

During this period, he had spent time with a Christian sect, and when he had been excommunicated from there, with a Jewish sect.  It was only after he had been excommunicated from the Jewish sect that his uncle had agreed to adopt him and thus gained a permission for him to re-enter the Arabic society…which is where he caught the eye of his uncle’s employer, Khadija, who then extended her protection over him by marring him (and thus defying her society’s standards).

While among the Christians. Mohammed saw just how splintered the Christian sects had become:  some believed that Jesus was the son of God who died on the cross and was bodily resurrected and lifted into heaven, others believed that he was a human who had been crucified and died on the cross, others yet believed that (whether the son of God or Man), he had escaped death on the cross (either by the use of a substitute or because he had been removed while unconscious but still alive and had then been revived by Esenne healers).  Yet other Christians believed that Jesus Christ could never ever have been imprisoned in a corporal body by ‘Rex Mundi’, but had always been a being of pure energy…

Mohammed really, really did not want his religious movement to be fractured among various factions the way Christianity had become.  Therefore, he said often that his revelations were literal and not open to interpretation – and that is why he stated clearly an openly that anyone who wishes to or attempts to ‘reform’ Islam of interpret any passages in any other way than literally is ‘a hypocrite’ and ‘an apostate’ and, according to the Koran, ‘hypocrites’ MUST be put to death…


Mohammed decreed that anyone who attempts to interpret his teachings in any way other than literally is a ‘hypocrite’ and that ‘hypocrites’ MUST be put to death…and it comes from a tribal society which holds ALL members of a family/clan accountable for the tansgressions for all of your relatives…

Thus, if a moderate Muslim in Canada, the US or another Western country speaks up against the extremists’s interpretations of Islam, their (even distant) blood relatives who live within Islamists’ jurisdiction will pay the price for it with their lives.

It is one thing to stand up to an oppressor if it is your own life/well being on the line:  it is quite different if your relatives, even distant relatives and their children might be killed for you speaking your mind!!!

And THAT FEAR  – not for their own selves, but for the well being of their even distant relatives’ children – is why most moderate Muslims are silent…

After all, if it were not just your own neck, but the necks of your cousins’, their children, and their children’s children – how likely would YOU be to stand up to the radicals?!?!?

Ozmoroid: In Defense of Young Earth Creationists


Muslims protect a church in Lahore

We so need much more of this!

Among a deluge of news about Islamic extremists burning/demolishing/desecrating Christian churches, Hindu and Buddhist temples and Synagogues all throughout the Muslim world, among the news of religious murders and bombings, it is most excellent to see moderate Muslims standing up for religious tolerance and protecting their Christian neighbours during worship:

‘Hand in hand as many as 200-300 people formed a human chain outside the St Anthony’s Church adjacent to the District Police Lines at the Empress Road, in a show of solidarity with the victims of the Peshawar church attack two weeks back, which resulted in over a 100 deaths. The twin suicide attack on All Saints church occurred after Sunday mass ended and is believed to be the country’s deadliest attack on Christians.

Standing in the small courtyard of St Anthony’s Church, as Mufti Mohammad Farooq delivered a sermon quoting a few verses of the Holy Quran that preached tolerance and respect for other beliefs, Father Nasir Gulfam stepped right next to him after having conducted a two hour long Sunday service inside the church. The two men stood should to shoulder, hand in hand as part of the human chain that was formed outside the church not just as a show of solidarity but also to send out a message, ‘One Nation, One Blood’.

As part of an attempt to sensitize the public at large, the human chain was the second such event after a similar had been organized in Karachi last week outside the St Patrick’s Cathedral by an organization called Pakistan For All – a collective of citizens concerned about the growing attacks on minorities.

“Well the terrorists showed us what they do on Sundays. Here we are showing them what we do on Sundays. We unite,” said Mohammad Jibran Nasir, the organizer who made the calls for the event on social media.’

Go over to Express Tribune to read the full article and to see photos.

It takes a lot of bravery for people to stand up against the fanatics within their own group, whatever that group may be – religious, political or social.  But, when they do, we must do all we can to support them and spread the word about their actions!



I Am Legend (The Evolution of Satan)

While I enjoy religionist-bashing as much as the next person (or, perhaps, more…), this next video is not bashing anything…it is a truly honest attempt to re-create the evolution of the concept of ‘Satan’ through the Old Testament.