ZOMGitsCriss on Ezra Levant and Macleans and Fitna

ZOMGitsCriss is somewhat of a presence among the ‘pro-free-speech’ crowd on YouTube…

She is a part of what I think is a small but growing international group of young people (most of whom are quite ‘left-wing’ – though, I have no idea where Criss stands politically) who are fighting the anti-censorship, pro-free-speech attitudes and policies which are beginning to creep onto the Internet and which threaten the impartiality of this medium to carry all kinds of information and all kinds of messages without outright censorship or some of them nebulous, non-transparent machinations through search-engine algorithm-manipulation which seem to make some information on the internet easy to find while making other ‘stuff’ so hard to find, it is, for all practical purposes, inaccessible!

Anyhow….

When I saw that the latest video of this Romanian free-speech activist mentions Ezra Levant, Mcleans (the Mark Steyn thingy) and Fitna – well, I though I ought to share it with you.

So, without further ado, here is “Islam is so wonderful and sciency and peaceful”:

TechnoViking: a study in positive alpha-male body language

This classic (10-year-old) video has become a meme of its own.

For Aspies, as well as everyone else, this is an excellent study in alpha-male body language and its use to skillfully dispel a potentially violent conflict.  A worthy subject of observation!

(That is an objective statement and the fact that the TechnoViking is uber-hot is most likely a simple side effect of this subject’s effective projection of super-concentrated male energy (constructively, not destructively channeled) and has not been influential in the selection of this specific video for observation and study!)

I call special attention to the classic, metllic Mjolnir-shaped amulet around the TechnoViking’s neck (which identifies him as a worshiper of Thor – NOT Odin) and the theological significance of both his socks and the colouring of his shorts:  all of which have led to the subject’s identification with the Viking theological heritage.

Thor – whose hammer (and symbol) Mjolnir is – used to be considered the ‘father’ of all the Viking gods, the head of the Norse Pantheon.  Mjolnir itself played an extremely important role in spring and fertility rites!  (Happy spring equinox!)

It was only following the influence of the Mediterranean theologies – and the rise of an affluent upper class among the Vikings – that Odin began to rise to the prominence we are accustomed to see him in.  It was Thor who had been firmly in charge during the ‘classical’ era of Norse religion!

The rise in Odin’s (and that of the ‘upper class’) influence  and status only began well into the ‘common era’ and could only succeed through diminishing the image of Thor:  thus, in later times, Thor is increasingly marginalized and, since he could not easily be maligned, ridiculed ….  Just as the ‘upper classes’ considered themselves to be much more ‘clever’ (though not ‘wise’ – in my never-humble-opinion), Odin began to thirst for more ‘knowledge’ (not ‘wisdom’) and Thor became depicted as increasingly dull and dull-witted…

What an interesting commentary on the nature of humanity:  even centuries ago, the ‘upper-middle-class progressives’ saw the unpretentious ‘conservatives’ as ‘dull and dumb’!  How little some things change… But, I digress…

By the time of Christian conquest of the Norse, Odin had risen to such prominence that he had not only de-throned Thor as the head of the pantheon, Odin had been elevated to the status of Thor’s father – reversing their original roles!

In order to join Odin’s cult, a young man had to go through a ritual of mystical ‘death and re-birth’, which was – according to the descriptions from that era, very similar to the Biblical account of the mystical initiation of Jesus’s brother-in-law… and, later, Jesus himself: a ritual ‘hanging’ (either using a rope or crucificction) to almost the point of death and ritual wounding with a sharp spear in very specific spots – identical to the places Jesus was to have been wounded by Roman soldiers while crucified – followed by 3 days of seclusion and healing….and the the joyful welcoming of the ‘re-born’ person!

But – that is NOT the focus of this video!

Nor is it the reason I embedded it.

Rather, I would like to go further back in the Norse mythology, to the time when Thor – with his ‘oak-power’ – was the alpha male god.   This is exactly the mythology of  ‘the oak’ which, for centuries, motivated European women to wish to give birth to male children ‘beneath’ or ‘in the shadow of’ an oak tree!

It is also why there are so many ‘oak-groves’ in Europe which are considered ‘sacred’ and why two days of our week are named in honour of Thor’s ‘mainland incarnations’, Tiwan and Woodin!

With the coming of the spring equinox, it is difficult to look around to see ‘all of nature waking up’ without being reminded of all the ancient spring fertility rituals (from Luprenalia to Easter) without remembering (even in some long-hidden recesses of our sub-conscious) the significance of the birch, the oak, and – with the help of TechnoViking –  Mjolnir!

So, I repeat:  this video is not just ‘eye-candy’ – it is a serious study in successful projection of ‘Mjolnir/oak/Thor-channeled’ alpha male energy and body language!

Now that you have all this in your mind – go watch the video again!

Observe and enjoy learn!

Salim Mansur: Unveiling the truth behind Sharia

If you read this blog every now and then, you probably know I am not exactly a lover of ‘Sharia’.

Quite to the contrary:  I regard Sharia as an abomination designed to de-empower (if you excuse the expression) women and other segments of society.

Salim Mansur’s colum in the Toronto Sun is right on:

“But the Islamists have succeeded in making the argument that the faith in, and the practice of, Islam is confined by the Shariah, and anything outside of it is non-Islam.

This argument deliberately obscures the fact that the Shariah is a legal system devised under Arab supremacy during the last three centuries of the first millennium and it was based on a reading of the Qur’an that reflected the prejudices of that age in history.”

And – he is absolutely right!

Shariah did not exist at all until several hundred years after the life of Muhammad.

Muhammad – for better or worse – declared that he was the last of the prophets.  That what is said in the Koran IS the whole of Islam.  That no other human  being had the power to ‘interpret’ Islam for others…

Yet, that is exactly what Shariah is:  other men’s interpretation, superimposing their opinions over the Koran!

This is exactly the very thing Muhammad forbade!  If one is to follow the rules prophet Muhammad laid down, really really follow them, they have no choice but to reject Sharia because it is against everything Islam stands for!

OK – I am not as good at expressing it as Salim Mansur is. So, read his column!

H/T: Blazing Catfur

Agnostic: what it does – and does not – mean

One term misused in debates about ‘religion’ almost as often as the term ‘atheist’ is the term ‘agnostic’.

Perhaps it’s the Aspie in me, but I think that if people are going to make passionate arguments, often using some terms in an authoritarian or patronizing manner, they ought to have taken the time to learn what those terms actually mean.  (Of course, not everyone does that – but, many do…)

The term ‘agnostic’ does not describe a person’s ‘belief in’ or ‘non-belief in’ or ‘belief-in-the-non’ existence of god(s).

Not even a little bit.

An ‘agnostic’ can believe in the existence of god(s).

An ‘agnostic’ can believe in the non-existence of  god(s).

An ‘agnostic’ can hold no belief in either the existence, or the non-existence, of god(s).

Still, many people use the term to mean ‘someone who does not believe one way or the other if god(s) exist’…..

Sorry – that is NOT what the word ‘agnostic’ describes!!!

Certainly, some agnostics fall into the category of ‘not holding a belief in either the existence, or the non-existence, of god(s).  But, that is only because there is an overlap in ‘groups’ or ‘states of belief’ that various definitions describe.

…kind of like there is an overlap between ‘long arms’ and ‘long hair’.  Both revolve about something being ‘long’.  And, some people with ‘long arms’ also have ‘long hair’.  But the terms each describe a different ‘long’ – so they cannot be used as if they meant the same thing!

Yes – I am getting bogged down in words.  To re-phrase:  the term ‘agnostic’ may include theists, non-theists, atheists or any other -theist group because it does not describe the state of one’s belief in the divine.

Rather, it describes one’s belief about the ‘ability to have knowledge’ of the existence of the divine.

Let’s look at the root of the word:

‘Gnosis’ means ‘knowledge’ in Greek.

The term, when used in English, refers to ‘spiritual enlightenment’ – as in, the type of ‘mystical enlightenment’ a person receives during a ‘spiritual  rapture’ or ‘spirit quest’ or another altered-state type meditation or similar experience.

For example, Gnostic Christians do not recognize the authority of any church or clergyman, because they strive for direct spiritual knowledge – gnosis.  This they regard as much more important than any dogma…

The prefix ‘a-‘ simply means ‘apart from’.

Thus, ‘a-gnostic’ – taken bit by bit – literally means ‘apart from (spiritual) knowledge’.

Once ‘put together’, the term ‘agnostic’ means ‘belief that it is un-knowable ‘ if god(s) do or do not exist.

Thus, this is a statement of belief.  Yes, to be an agnostic, one must hold this belief!

But this belief is not about the existence of the divine: it is a belief about existence of knowledge of the divine!

Specifically, an agnostic actively believes that we cannot know whether god(s) exist.

This does not preclude choosing to believe, anyway.  Many people have concluded that they cannot know for sure if god(s) exist, so, to be on the safe side, they decide to believe!  This is the very point of Pascal’s Wager.

Blaise Pascal argued that we cannot know – through reason, so really, really know – if God exists.  Therefore, we ought to consider the 2 possible scenarios (God exists and God does not exist) and our 2 choices of action (believe in God or not believe in God) and do a risk-assessment:

Scenario 1:  God does not exist

Choice 1:  behave as if God does exist

Result – more effort during life, but, nothing gained.

Choice 2:  behave as if God does not exist

Result – nothing lost and nothing gained.

Scenario 2:  God exists:

Choice 1:   behave as if God does exist

Result – more effort during life, but huge gain at ‘the end’! Eternal Salvation!

Choice 2:  behave as if God does not exist

Result – less effort during life, but then… everything lost! Eternal damnation!

Therefore, Pascal’s reasoning goes, the cost to one’s soul of ‘not believing’ in God is much greater (eternal damnation) than the cost of believing in God while alive (obeying the church).  Therefore, the only reasonable choice is to believe!

(OK – there could be an argument made whether Pascal actually said ‘choose to believe’ or ‘live as if you believe’:  the first one would be an agnostic who chooses to be a theist, the second one would be an agnostic who is an atheist, but chooses to behave as a theist.  But, that – as well as just how ‘voluntary’ it is ‘to believe’ – is a whole different discussion!)

Aside:  this same argument has been used by some people to justify spending tons of money on ‘preventing the disaster of global warming/anthropogenic climate change’.  That ought to suffice in helping us recognize that the whole ‘ACC’ movement is a religion, not science, and that ‘carbon credits’ are its ‘indulgences’.

But – back to the main point…

Summary:  The term ‘agnostic’ does not refer to one’s ‘beliefs’ about the existence of God.  Rather, it is the positive (‘actively present’) belief that it is impossible to know if god(s) exist.

Thus, it is a belief about the nature (presence) of knowledge.  Specific knowledge, in this case, but knowledge none the less.

It is not a statement about one’s state of belief in the subject of that knowledge – the existence of god(s).

Agnostics can either believe that god(s) exist – or not.  They just believe they cannot ever actually know

Iranian theocracy: 31 years of oppression

Today marks the 31st anniversary of when theocracy was inflicted upon Iran.

I cannot express the depth of my empathy with the people of Iran adequately – there are no words strong enough.

There are tyrannies – all kinds of tyrannies.  And it is not pleasant to live under the yoke of any tyrant!

But, not all tyrannies are the same.  The differences are very important:  perhaps not so much to any specific individual who is martyred by a tyrant, but to the overall population, there is a difference.

It is difficult to explain what I mean – but, I shall try.

There is potential for infinite goodness in humanity – but there is also a potential for infinite evil in us.  It is only the choices we make that determine which potential we are fulfilling.  The actions we choose to take or not to take – that alone fulfills our potential.

While there are such among us that take delight out of causing pain and suffering to others, they are in a minority.  If – or, rather, when (their ruthlessness drives them) – such a bad persons come to power, they can only remain there with the help of those who are corrupt. Sure, they will have cores of psychopaths they surround themselves with – but their numbers will never be large enough to keep them in power!

That is why tyrants need corrupt people to run their government.  Not actively evil psychopaths, like themselves, but, those willing to be corrupt are numerous enough among us to permit tyrants to rule.  Up to a point:  if the tyrants excesses get to be too much, even the corrupt will balk at their evil and refuse to prop them up any longer.

Or, perhaps another way of phrasing it is that a ‘simple’ tyrant is, sooner or later, seen for what he or she is:  a tyrant.  Therefore, at some point in time, enough people will loose their fear of the tyranny and will rise up against the tyrant.  This will happen when the people believe the cost of inaction is greater than the cost of rising up!

In a horrible sense, it is a self-correcting system.  Not a nice, pleasant or efficient system, but, it has been repeated enough times to note the pattern.

Even this pathetic ‘self-correction’, this ‘worst possible hope’ has been subverted by theocracies by changing the way the people measure the ‘cost in suffering’!

How?

1.   more people are willing to inflict suffering onto others if they believe they are helping bring them back to ‘righteousness’ (their ends justify the means)

2.  those oppressed are willing to suffer much longer and worse abuses because they believe they have more than just their worldly life to loose if they rebel!

The percentage of people who enjoy inflicting serious pain and suffering – for the sake of their own pleasure – really is not that big.  But, those who are willing to inflict pain and suffering onto others because they believe it is ‘a necessary evil’ – a way to drag others onto the path to salvation, whether they wish to be  saved or not – those people we have in abundance!

It’s a variation on the old saying:  ‘spare the rod and spoil the child’!  Yes, that is right!  You ‘ought to’ inflict violence on this here person, because it will ‘clense them’ and make them ‘better’!

Many of those who inflict suffering onto others under an oppressive theocracy do not do so because they enjoy the whole inflicting pain thing (except those who believe that suffering on this world buys you a better ‘next life’ – they are willing to open you a ‘savings account’ of type).

These are not inherently cruel people.  Rather, they perform these unpleasant tasks for the sake of those they oppress, for the sake of their society, for the sake of all the children, for the sake of their God!  It is the conditioning of the gullible, tricking them into committing evil against others in the name of ‘fighting evil’ and ‘being righteous’ that raises the number of potential oppressors that theocratic tyrants can exploit to keep themselves in power!

“Religion always leads to rhetorical despotism.

It shields evil behind walls of self-righteousness which are proof against all arguments against the evil.”

– Leto II

God Emperor of Dune

As for the oppressed people themselves…

They will endure more suffering if they believe it is God’s Will than they would ever stand for if they thought it a mere man’s will!

And, standing up to a God takes a lot more courage, too…

Of course, some religions add the element of ‘eternal soul’:  suffering on this Earth is good, because it will buy you everlasting bliss in the next, much longer life-after-life!  Of course, there is a stick behind  this proverbial carrot, too:  even if you get away with rebelling against God on THIS world, He’ll torture your soul for eternity in such horrible ways that only a God could imagine, so you had better not dare make trouble!

Others add the ‘collective punishment’ clause:  unless everyone does ‘the right thing’, all of humanity will suffer!   People will put up with much abuse, if they think they are buying protection for their loved ones…

Sometimes, the theocratic tyrants actually prey victim to their own propaganda and believe, truly believe, their own lies and religions!  Because they remain convinced of their own righteousness, they will remain blind to the worst evils they commit!

Just ask the people of Iran…  They rose up against a ‘simple tyrant’ only to have a theocratic one fly in from Paris and steal their freedoms away from them!

What a sad day…

Pat Condell: when the truth is illegal….

‘Atheist’: a definition

Before I get started on defining ‘atheism’ or ‘what  makes someone an atheist’, it is important to say some things about what ‘atheism’ is not.

‘Atheism’ is not a formal or codified doctrine, like, say, Christianity, or even Humanism, is.

There is no set of ‘beliefs’ or ‘values’ which ‘atheists’ share or subscribe to.

That is because in order to have a shared ‘doctrine’ or ‘dogma’,  a label must describe some types of ‘held’ beliefs or convictions of the people being thus labeled.  ‘Atheism’ does not describe a set of ‘held’ beliefs – or even just one belief.

Instead, it describes ‘absence of belief’:  a very specific absence of one specific belief – the belief in the existence of deities.

Atheist:

An atheist is a person who does not ‘hold the belief’ that God(s) and/or Goddess(es) exist.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Some people refer to monotheism (not believing in the existence Gods or Goddesses – except one) as ‘selective atheism’:  people who believe in just one deity necessarily disbelieve in the existence of all deities but one.

Atheists may still belong to a religion:  not every religion has deities in it!  From ‘the big 5’, Buddhism is a religion which does not address the question of deities.  And, no, Buddha is not a God – not in any way, shape or form – and never was.  And – Buddhism is not the only atheistic religion.

Communism, for example, is another example of a religion which does not have any deities:  it requires the ‘belief in’/’submission to’/’acceptance of’ certain principles (of collectivism, in this case) instead.  And, there are countless more!

Describing something as ‘atheistic’ means that it does not address the question of the existence of God or Gods or Goddesses.  Therefore, any and every thing, conversation, organization and so on, which does not specifically proclaim the ‘belief in the existence of deities’ is, by definition, atheistic.

To lump all ‘atheists’ together as if they all subscribed to a common doctrine or school of thought would be even less accurate than lumping all ‘theists’ together:  while all ‘theists’ actually have a positive belief in the existence of one or more deities, defining someone as an ‘atheist’ does not define any actual belief.  It just says what these people do not believe.  It’s like identifying a group of people by saying ‘people who do not die their hair’…this can include anyone from people that have no hair to die, to people who like their ‘natural’ haircolour…all the way to people who would change their hair colour, if only they could (or, if it were easier).

OK – this is getting muddled. Let me try another approach.

Though there are ‘shades in-between’, these are several distinct ‘types’ or ‘major classes’ of atheists.  In order to describe them, please, indulge me and play a little thought experiment with me:

Let’s say that I tell you I have a neighbour. Let’s say that I now show you a picture of a woman with blond hair and say this is my neighbour..  Do you believe my neighbour is a natural blond?

***

Having never thought about my neighbour – much less a blond one – before now, it it not likely that you

  • believe my neighbour is a natural blond
  • believe my neighbour is not a natural blond

Therefore, you are ‘apart from belief’ whether my neighbour is a ‘natural blonde’.

This roughly approximates what I think of as the ‘what are gods and why should I believe in them’ atheists.  Not only do they not hold a belief either way, they don’t see the point of even thinking about it.  They simply do not care – and most of them don’t want to care.

***

Having looked at the picture, you may find there simply isn’t enough information there to make you

  • believe my neighbour is a natural blond
  • believe my neighbour is not a natural blond

Therefore, even though you have taken the time to investigate (you looked at the picture) and to think about it, yet, you don’t ‘believe’ one way or the  other.  You may think it is likely – say, 80% likely – that she might be a natural blonde.  Or not.  Who could tell?

This roughly approximates what I think of as ‘considered atheists’.  They have considered the question of the existence of deities, looked at the religions ‘out there’, thought about it, and did not become convinced enough to hold a belief one way or the other.  They may still be searching for ‘belief’, hoping to find it.  Or, they may not be.

***

Or, having looked at the picture, you may have noticed that the woman in the picture has blond hair with black roots… Therefore, you

  • believe my neighbour is not a natural blond

This is actually REALLY substantially different from the above two types of ‘apart from belief’ groups:  you actually believe in the truthfulness of one of the choices!  You just happen to believe in the ‘not’ option…

While you still ‘do not believe’ that my neighbour is a natural blond, but, in addition to ‘disbelieving’ that her blond-ness is natural, you actively believe that it is not.  Therefore, you have ‘an absence of belief’ in  the first proposition, and active/positive ‘belief’ in the second one.

Many people today refer to this group as ‘strong atheists’.  Frankly, that is not just wrong, it is silly.

The ‘atheist’ label refers to ‘absence of belief’ – and associating it with a belief (the belief in the ‘non-existence’) is inaccurate and misleading.  Unfortunately, the term ‘atheist’ became used in this very sense from very shortly after it was created, because many people find it difficult to understand that ‘absence of belief in Gods’ does not imply ‘belief of absence of Gods’…

…which does not mean that continuing to misuse the term is a good idea.

Plus, it seems to me that holding ANY ‘belief’ is a weakness – NOT a strength.

Therefore, referring to a ‘purist’ non-beliver as a ‘weak atheist’ and to a person who actually holds ANY form of a belief as a ‘strong atheist’ seems, to me, stupid at best. (OK – I’m not being particularly eloquent:  but I am being honest!)

***

Of course, there are many people whose reactions – given this thought experiment – would be quite different.  Like…

  • I believe the woman in this picture is a ‘natural blonde’ – but I don’t believe she is your neighbour!
  • What woman?  You are showing me a picture of a car!
  • Whatever her hair colour is, how natural it is – that is irrelevant.  She should cover her hair!
  • Hey!  This is a crayon drawing!  You drew this yourself!  You are trying to trick me!

….plus about a hundred other possible responses.  But, this post is NOT about THEM.  It is about showing that ‘disbelief’ is different that ‘belief’ – even different from ‘belief in  not’….

Of course, there are people – even self-identified as ‘atheists’ – who just don’t get this.

They did not do their homework.

They are  confusing any and all discussions on this issue.

And, that is too bad…

At a loss for words…

A bit ago, I wrote a post ‘Winning back our liberty: the ‘religious right’ threat’.

This was one post in a ‘Winning back our liberty’ series based on a ‘freedom of speech’ seminar I went to in December.  Earlier posts included ‘Winning back our liberty: the ‘commercial’ threat’ and its afterthought and ‘Winning back our liberty: the ‘international’ threat’ .

It took me a long time to write this post – the ‘religious right’ one – because I was afraid that people on ‘the religious right’ would either not take it seriously – so I had to strongly support my point – or that they would focus solely on the ‘supporting evidence’ and miss my actual point completely.

Well, it seems that my fears were not misplaced.   Please, just scroll down past the LEAF bit to get to where ‘Binks, the Webelf’ goes medieval on my post.

To say that I was disappointed would be an understatement.

And, ever since he posted it – a bunch of days now…hence no posts from me – I have been trying to compose a response to his criticisms.

However, I am having trouble with this.  In my typical Aspie fashion, I get lost in the details:  I wish to pick apart the fallacies in his reasoning, the errors or incomplete comprehension of the historical facts, or the misunderstanding/misrepresentation of some of the key concepts in the debate.

Either I get caught up in the minutiae.

Or I get sidetracked into correcting some serious errors in his statements.

Or I explain myself, but, I don’t think I support my arguments sufficiently.

Or – I accomplish all of the above….and my post is at over 10K words…so I delete the draft and start again.

I’ll have to work on this some more.  In the meantime – any help would be appreciated!

P.S.   I wonder if his remark about the ‘buzzing of a bee’ was an allusion to Gnostic Christian dogma, with which Binks, the Webelf knows I have been familiar with since early childhood.  Because, if it is, it means at least another 10K-words-worth of a response will be required!

Laura Rosen Cohen: Freedom will set us free

Blazing Catfur has a guest-post by Laura Rosen Cohen:  Freedom will set us free.  This is a response to the ‘official Jewry’ calls for increased censorship as they fight a war long won, instead of facing an enemy ready for a new and bloody battle:

“Time after time, when Jewish “leaders” resort to their default position on hate speech and fatuous accusations of anti-Semitism, I am called upon by my exasperated pro-Israel gentile friends to explain why these “leaders” seem so hell bent on alienating them with their knee-jerk anti-Christian biases and their frankly completely un-Jewish moral support of censorship-such as the Canadian Jewish Congress’s support of the CHRC “Hate Speech” and other “Hate Crime” legislation.”

“The real danger facing the Jewish people, and the civilized world is not Nazi words-it is deeds; beheadings, suicide bombings and highjackings with the umbrella name of “jihad”. Furthermore, it is morally and intellectually dishonest to point to insulting words as the root cause of the Nazi dehumanization of Jews.

It was the disassembling of Jewish civil liberties and civil rights that began the downward spin toward hell on earth. The descent began when Jews were stripped by the state of their rights to own property and businesses. Their physical property and humanity were legally expropriated. When the state took away the Jews’ freedom to marry whom they chose, and when the state legally defined the Jews as less than human, the descent was unstoppable.”

“The Nazi state and its laws enabled the dehumanization of Jews-not words and insults. Concentrated, dictatorial legislative powers were Hitler’s best weapon and were among the Nazis most profoundly and rapidly absorbed anti-Jewish functions within German society.

Read the full post here.

And – Ms. Rosen Cohen – well said!

Winning back our liberty: the ‘religious right’ threat

Just read Ezra Levant’s ‘Christmas column’.  It sums up the problem rather well…

It has taken me a long time to write this post, because I just can’t seem to get the proper wording.

But, there is no easy way of saying this…

The ‘conservative movement’ or ‘right wing’ includes what is referred to as ‘the religious right’.

I am not referring to people who are conservative, but just happen to be religious.  Not at all.  Rather, I am referring to the people who see themselves as ‘conservatives’ because they have what they consider to be ‘conservative social values’.  But, their social values are not so much ‘conservative’ as ‘old-fashioned’, or, even better description would be ‘religiously motivated’.

There is no problem with holding these views – even though they mistakenly think them to be ‘conservative’.  Where the problem comes is that many of these people wish to impose these so-called ‘conservative’ values on all of our society:  they think that in order to be a ‘conservative’ a person must subscribe to their brand of religious ‘morality’.

To much of this  ‘religious right’, ‘freedom of religion’ appears to mean replacing the religious oppression of every member of the society by another religious faction by the religious oppression of every member of the society according to their own religious dogma.   All else they call ‘moral relativism’

And, they say this as if it were a bad thing!

Legislating one religious group’s morality to rule everybody is not freedom!

Which, I rather thought, is the whole point of separating the State from the Church (or Synagogue, or Mosque, or whatever other temple may wish to influence the State).

In a free society, the citizens must not permit anyone to legislate morality or to turn religious prejudices into laws which rule the land!

Most of you have doubtlessly heard a variation of this statement:

“Our Western values of freedom of speech and religion are deeply rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition and it was time we became true to our roots!”

This statement is so ludicrous, I do not know where to start…or even if I need to…to debunk it!

It is in the scientific revolution that our society has its roots!

It is through the rejection of Judeo-Christian principles that we have gained freedom of speech and freedom of religion!

In ancient Greece, thinkers and philosophers (‘yellow horses’ included) reasoned out that so much of what was happening around them – and which was attributed to deities – was no more and no less than natural phenomena.  This freed their thinking of the blind desire to be servants to invisible, intangible deities.  Their now unfettered minds were free to reason – truly reason – about their surroundings.  This led to new advances in science and technology, raising everyone’s standard of living.

The beginning of the end of this era of free thought was ‘the conversion of Constantine’ to Christianity.  The event that marked the final end, the ‘death blow’ to the religious tolerance which people then took for granted, the demise of the very ancient Greek civilization, was the brutal murder of Hypatia of Alexandria.

Hypatia grew up in the famed Library of Alexandria, as her father, Theon, the astronomer and mathematician,was the second last curator of the library.  She became the last (if one is to take Carl Sagan’s word for it).

Famous for her breadth and depth of knowledge and wisdom beyond her years, Hypatia was a much sought after teacher, astronomer, philosopher and mathematician in her own right. Historical records indisputably demonstrate that she headed up the Neoplatonic school of Philosophy at the main site of the Alexandrian Library, the Museum (named for the Muses).  She was highly respected – even by Christians, many of whom attended her lectures.

St. Cyril, the Christian Bishop of Alexandria at that time, was attempting to fuse the power of the state with religion – with himself in full charge of ruling Alexandria.  Famously – and illegally – his mob of ‘monks’ leveled all the synagogues of Alexandria and expelled the Jews.  He destroyed the churches of Christian sects he deemed too moderate.  But, he did not forget the ‘pagans’!

Cyril declared that ‘learning and intellectual pursuits’ kept people form ‘religious fervor’ and therefore had to be destroyed.  His predecessor (and uncle) had started, by burning thousands of scrolls which recorded scientific knowledge.  Cyril continued.

And, he could not suffer the popular symbol of Greek learning and wisdom, Hypatia, to live.

A mob of Christians, led by St. Cyril’s right-hand henchman, Peter,  dragged Hypatia from her carriage/chariot and stripped her naked, dragged her through the streets, into a Christian Church, placed her on the altar and scraped her flesh off her bones with sharp oyster shells.  They then set her on fire, in an attempt to disguise the crime…

The end of the ancient Greek period of enlightenment ended when Christians took the reigns of secular power in the Roman empire, burned and destroyed libraries, and imposed ‘Christian morality’ on all the land!

Yes, this ascension of Christianity into a position of power brought us – what was it?  Ah, yes, the Dark Ages.

And when science began to re-emerge in our society, when Copernicus made his observations, what did the Christian culture respond with?   What was the most widely printed and circulated (aside from the Bible) book Christiandom produced then?  Ah, that wonderful treatise on religious tolerance and love between all humans:  Malleus Maleficarum!

It had excellent instructions on opening inter-faith dialogues!

Are these the Judeo-Christian principles in which our modern freedoms are rooted?

Is this what we want to return to?

Because that is what theocracies inevitably degenerate into!

If you listen to the ‘religious right’, that would seem to be the plan….except that they truly seem to think this is ‘freedom’.

That is why I think that so many people do not wish to be associated with ‘the right wing’:  very few people wish to be lumped together with the people who wish to impose their religious ‘morals’ onto the whole society.

The worst thing is that our society is, slowly but incrementally, submitting to Islamic religious ‘morals’ – and this push is coming from the ‘left’, under the guise of ‘tolerance’.  Which it is not.  Again, I do not understand how so many people can have such a large blind spot.

Fighting imposition of Islamic ‘morals’ on our society by attempting to impose Christian ‘morals’ on us instead is not the way to win back our freedom!

If we do not recognize that, we are doomed…