Seismic Shock: criticizing a clergyman opens a ‘police file’

January 25, 2010 — xanthippa

What should happen to somebody who accuses another person of anti-Semitism and associating with terrorists?

Well, in a ‘Western’ country, the person who was accused of these nasty things has the recourse of suing the accuser for defamation:  we have courts that resolve exactly this!

Ezra Levant is being sued for something exactly like this.  And, Mr. Levant reports the process:  first, he was served with libel notice, and later (6 months later, in this case) his lawyer was served with the lawsuit itself.

While I do not support lawfare – the use of the legal system to financially exhaust a person and shut them up this way – this is how we handle things when one person does not like what another person says about them and considers him/herself defamed by such statements.

…like being accused of being an anti-Semite and associating with terrorists.

That is what we do in ‘civilized countries’!

It seems that the United Kingdom of (Formerly) Great Britain and Northern Ireland can no longer be considered one of these!

What the [insert expletive of your choice here] is happening in the UK?

People there now have surveillance cameras in their homes, to make sure they feed their kids the ‘properly’ and out them to bed ‘on time’.

A 71-year old disabled immigrant widow, whose house was pelted with rocks by young punks, was charged with assault for telling them off while poking one of the punks in the chest with her finger. She was given a 6-month suspended sentence and a 50 pound fine…

A 9-year old got busted for playing in a park, a 2-year old got an ‘Anti-Social Behaviour Order’ for playing with a ball in his own back-yard….and parents are banned from council play-grounds.

Now, a blogger who criticized a clergyman gets a visit from the police!

In what kind of a country does slandering or defaming a person launch a police investigation?

In what kind of a country does slandering or defaming a person earn you a police visit to your school or place of employment, where your ‘misdeeds’ are brought to the attention of your educators/superiors?

In what kind of a country does slandering or defaming a person gets the police to ‘open a file’ on you?

As Seismic Shock has learned – the hard way – this will happen in a country like the UK…

At 10am on Sunday 29th November 2009, I received a visit from two policemen regarding my activities in running the Seismic Shock blog. (Does exposing a vicar’s associations with extremists make me a criminal?, I wondered initially). A sergeant from the Horsforth Police related to me that he had received complaints via Surrey Police from Rev Sizer and from Dr Anthony McRoy – a lecturer at the Wales Evangelical School of Theology – who both objected to being associated with terrorists and Holocaust deniers.

(Context: Sizer has associated with some very nasty terrorists and Holocaust deniers; McRoy has delivered a paper at a Khomeinist theological conference in Iran comparing Hezbollah’s struggle against Israel via suicide bombing with the Christian’s struggle against sin via the atoning death of Jesus, and describes the world’s most prominent Holocaust denier as an “intelligent, humble, charismatic, and charming” man who “gives quick, extensive and intelligent answers to any question, mixed with genial humour”).

The sergeant made clear that this was merely an informal chat, in which I agreed to delete my original blog (http://seismicshock.blogspot.com/) but maintain my current one (http://seismicshock.wordpress.com). The policeman related to me that his police force had been in contact with the ICT department my previous place of study, and had looked through my files, and that the head of ICT at my university would like to remind me that I should not be using university property in order to associate individuals with terrorists and Holocaust deniers (I am sure other people use university property to make political comments, but nevermind).

With my research on Reverend Sizer’s associations with terrorists and Holocaust deniers making its way into a publication of the Society of Biblical Literature, I was quite content to hold my peace. However, now that Reverend Sizer is now misrepresenting what has happened in my case in order to intimidate others, now is the time to speak up.

This is just wrong.  And – indeed, the vicar attempted to intimidate an Australian blogger who carried the story, threatening him with police…

So, I say:  WE ARE ALL SEISMIC SHOCK!

H/T: BCF

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, religion. Tags: , , , , . 6 Comments »

Musings on the existence of God – and of Richard Dawkins

January 11, 2010 — xanthippa

A few days ago, Walker Morrow had a fun, humorous bit : Is there evidence for the existence of Richard Dawkins?

In it is embeded  this link to a video (scroll down a little) which, in what I am told is a humorous manner, mocks Dawkins’s way of questioning the existence of God to question the existence of Richard Dawkins himself!

The flippant answer would be, of course, that I’ve seen a YouTube video where Thunderf00t interviews Richard Dawkins, and, when I see a video of Thunderf00t interviewing ‘God’, I’ll believe in ‘God’, too!

But, of course, my real answer is a little wordier….and weirder!

I do not know that Richard Dawkins exists!

And, making that realization is essential!

OK – perhaps this is the Aspie in me, or perhaps it is the scientist in me – or, some combination thereof.  But, by the time I was 13 (I grew up behind the Iron Curtain, so I had no access to philosophical or theological writing of any kind – this was just my simple, peasant-brain reasoning), I realized that I could not objectively prove that I myself exist!

My original formulation was very clumsy and I have not really refined the wording much, just shortened it a bit (OK – a lot) :

  1. The only way we learn about/observe/get data from our surroundings is via our senses.
  2. Our senses are demonstrably subjective (I could demonstrate this to myself, as my right eye perceives colours quite differently than my left eye does…but only just  before the onset of a migraine headache.  So, I concluded that our senses necessarily colour (pun intended)  our perceptions, making them definitely ‘not objective’.)
  3. Since the only information reaching ‘us’ about our surroundings is subjective (through the senses), it can be manipulated and we cannot make any objective conclusions based on it…like, say, to assert that any self-awareness we think we perceive is ‘our own’.

OK – so the argument is a bit ‘rough-around-the-edges’, but, you get the gist of it.

Some people think this is pointless prattle –  nothing but what Scott Adams would have called ‘mental masturbation’…

I beg to disagree!

Before a scientists makes any observation, she/he calibrates the instruments to be used.  This is important, because it sets the ‘baseline’ against which any results can be evaluated:  how good were the instruments, the accuracy of any measurements, the error margins, and all that.  If, for example, a thermometer measures temperature to the nearest degree, it will not reliably show variations of one-thousandth of a degree, and so on.

Similarly, if we are aware that all our perceptions are subjective and that we cannot even prove that ‘we’ are the bit we think of as our ‘self’, that we cannot objectively prove anything ‘absolutely’, not even our own existence as we perceive ourselves to be, it ‘calibrates’ our credulousness of what we perceive – so to speak!

Thus, if we are ‘objective’ in our reasoning, we are forced to admit that we  lack the capacity to ‘accept anything as absolute truth’ – or, if you will, as a tenet of faith.   To do so regardless would be irresponsible, to say the least.

Therefore, I ‘do not believe that Richard Dawkins exists’, any more than I ‘believe that I exist’!

It is essential that we understand that this ‘calibration’ does not mean that I can assume any such foolish thing as ‘I do not exist’ or ‘I do not need to behave as if I exist’ – not in the least.  The absence of belief in something does not imply the belief in the non-existence of it!   That is an important distinction – one too often lost on people not trained in logic.

It simply alerts me that everything has an ‘error margin’ and that nothing ought to be accepted ‘absolutely’, without reservations, without an implied error-margin.

Perhaps this is the manifesto of the ever-questioning skeptic….  Still, it prevents me (and many others like me) from being able to just ‘believe’ things, to have ‘religious faith’ – of any kind.

Posted in Aspergers, atheism, ignosticism, philosophy, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , . 4 Comments »

Instead of posting lately….

December 27, 2009 — xanthippa

Sorry about the lack of new posts recently…

Aside from my difficulties getting to a computer that would work with me (now thankfully solved!) and the social obligations which come with this time of year (and leave me too brain-numb to write anything useful), I have also been having conversations in the comments, especially on the last few posts.

Now, I am torn:  I wanted to write more on the connections between the corporate/commercial threats to our rights and freedoms and the international ones….until I saw Ezra Levant’s ‘Christmas Post’ about ‘putting Christ back into Christmas’.  I admit, my blood-pressure went through the roof and I was too keyed up to write coherently for hours….so, perhaps, I ought to address the threat from ‘the religious right’.

This threat is real and mutifaceted – and if I don’t phrase things just right, it will come off as religion-bashing instead of the real and legitimate concerns which many freedom-loving people have from this direction (without and within the pro-freedom movement).

Either way I go, it will take me a while to finish, as I am a slow thinker and even slower writer… please, forgive me!

May be I’ll just rant on about an upstart young religion re-naming an ancient ritual after their own God absorbing its customs and traditions into its own, and then claiming that since the holiday has their G since it’s got this name, it must be about only its deity….  But, that would not be very ‘Christmasy’, would it?

Posted in about, politics, religion. Tags: , . 5 Comments »

Winning back our liberty…where to start?

December 13, 2009 — xanthippa

Internet indeed moves at the speed of light:  my thinking, however, does not.

Some people have written reviews and excellent and insightful commentary on that ‘Freedom thingy‘ (‘Freedom of Speech and Liberty Symposium’ and ‘The conservative movement at a crossroads’ is such a mouthfull!) I went to last Monday (7th of December, 2009), some even with links to the speeches themselves.

I’m afraid I did not, because, well, I am still mulling it over….  By the time I will have thought through the individual speeches (I’m nowhere near done), any write up will be embarrassingly ‘stale’.  My apologies.

My absence of commentary, however, does not mean that I did not find attending both the day and evening sessions interesting, useful and fodder for a lot of constructive thinking.

Had I gone simply to listen to the speakers, I would have heard much of what I knew, and a bit that I didn’t.  However, that was not my primary purpose for attending.  As is my nature, I – you guessed it – I went so that I could ‘observe‘.  And when things seemed too dull or scripted (private discussions – not presentations), I’d lob in a ‘conversational grenade’ – so I could, yes, observe…

I was equally fascinated by what was said and discussed as by the how.  But, I was even more interested by WHAT WAS NOT….

It was that ‘what was not’ that I think is really important:  whether because we are not aware that these bits are missing, or because we are too afraid to discuss them, is irrelevant.  Not addressing them is something we cannot afford to do!

Since I have the attention-span of a gnat, I know I’ll probably never finish the full series, but….

In the next couple of posts, I would like to look at at least a few of these ‘missing bits’ which we need to fill in before this grass-roots, pro-liberty movement is viable.  And, I think it CAN be – but not without some considerable self-examination by us all in the ‘bits’ we’d rather not talk about…

How come I am talking about this, when so many better qualified people did not mention it?

Well, I often think ‘outside the box’ because I am always having trouble ‘seeing the boxes’….

I am an immigrant – so, my observations tend to be with respect to a slightly different frame of reference…alternate cultural experience during formative years and all that.

Plus, my ‘reading list’ is not the same as most of the people’s who were there:  they are knowledgeable in political history and theory stuff – I have no clue about that, have not read any of those books, have not been in Canada for many of the ‘formative events’ they describe.

Instead, I studied physics in University.  In my free time (and spare courses), I studied sociology and anthropology of religions (any dogma, really, whether theological or not). I read books about how specific beliefs and attitudes will arise out of particular societies, and how dogmatization of these beliefs will then shape the society’s future evolution: there is a whole feedback thingy there.  I took time to learn various religions (both from books, and by attending services and discussions with theologians and laymen (except for the Wiccan Church of Canada:  in Wicca, every practitioner is a priest or priestess by definition), to make sure I understood both the theory and practice).  I also studied the bits of psychiatry of that deal with archetypes and religious belief/faith…  I know, rather silly, but fascinating!

So, I suspect that even if I do see some ‘boxes’, they are not likely the same ones as most of the people who attended see….  I just hope that my observations and suggestions will be of help.

(I’ll update this with links to the pertinent posts, if I remember…)

UPDATE: Winning back our liberty:  the ‘commercial’ threat

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Posted in debate, freedoms, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , . 3 Comments »

CodeSlinger: ‘The Comprachicos’ (Child Thiefs) by Ayn Rand

November 19, 2009 — xanthippa

Some of the most popular post on this site are the guest-posts by CodeSlinger.  Lately, I have been ranting on about the dangers of segregating school-aged children based on some ‘visible’ criteria:  race, creed, sex, and the like.  This intro is followed by a guest-post by CodeSlinger.

Since a race-segregated school has opened as a pilot project in Toronto, there have been calls for segregating boys out of ‘mainstream  schools’ and into ‘boys-only’ classrooms or schools, run by male teachers (this latter part, of course, is contrary to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms), where the ‘goals’ set for the students would be ‘more achievable’ for ‘boys’.  In other words, ‘maleness’ was re-defined as a ‘physical disability’ for which specialized, dumbed-down classrooms were needed….

CodeSlinger has thought about this:  and, while he asserts that the current atmosphere in our public schools is very damaging to boys, especially when they are young, he has come to agree that the same people who have entrenched ‘Cultural Marxism’ in our classrooms cannot be trusted not to use their position of power and influence to ensure the ‘b0ys-only’ programs are not designed to be even more ‘toxic’ to boys than the current variety is!

As part of this debate, CodeSlinger has offered the following:

The Comprachicos

by Ayn Rand

[emphasis added by CodeSlinger]

The comprachicos, or comprapequeños, were a strange and hideous nomadic association, famous in the seventeenth century, forgotten in the eighteenth, unknown today …

Comprachicos, as well as comprapequeños, is a compound Spanish word that means “child-buyers.” The comprachicos traded in children. They bought them and sold them.

They did not steal them. The kidnapping of children is a different industry.

And what did they make of these children?

Monsters.

Why monsters?

To laugh.

The people need laughter; so do the kings. Cities require side-show freaks or clowns; palaces require jesters …

To succeed in producing a freak, one must get hold of him early. A dwarf must be started when he is small …

Hence, an art. There were educators. They took a man and turned him into a miscarriage; they took a face and made a muzzle. They stunted growth; they mangled features. This artificial production of teratological cases had its own rules. It was a whole science. Imagine an inverted orthopedics. Where God had put a straight glance, this art put a squint. Where God had put harmony, they put deformity. Where God had put perfection, they brought back a botched attempt. And, in the eyes of connoisseurs, it is the botched that was perfect …

The practice of degrading man leads one to the practice of deforming him. Deformity completes the task of political suppression …

The comprachicos had a talent, to disfigure, that made them valuable in politics. To disfigure is better than to kill. There was the iron mask, but that is an awkward means. One cannot populate Europe with iron masks; deformed mountebanks, however, run through the streets without appearing implausible; besides, an iron mask can be torn off, a mask of flesh cannot.

To mask you forever by means of your own face, nothing can be more  ingenious …

The comprachicos did not merely remove a child’s face, they removed his memory. At least, they removed as much of it as they could. The child was not aware of the mutilation he had suffered. This horrible surgery left traces on his face, not in his mind. He could remember at most that one day he had been seized by some men, then had fallen asleep, and later they had   cured him. Cured him of what?  He did not know. Of the burning by sulphur and the incisions by iron, he remembered nothing. During the operation, the comprachicos made the little patient unconscious by means of a stupefying powder that passed for magic and suppressed pain …

In China, since time immemorial, they have achieved refinement in a special art and industry: the molding of a living man. One takes a child two or three years old, one puts him into a porcelain vase, more or less grotesque   in shape, without cover or bottom, so that the head and feet protrude. In the daytime, one keeps this vase standing upright; at night, one lays it
down, so that the child can sleep. Thus the child expands without growing, slowly filling the contours of the vase with his compressed flesh and twisted bones. This bottled development continues for several years. At a certain point, it becomes irreparable. When one judges that this has occurred and that the monster is made, one breaks the vase, the child comes out, and one has a man in the shape of a pot.

– Victor Hugo, The Man Who Laughs [Ayn Rand’s translation]

Victor Hugo wrote this in the nineteenth century. His exalted mind not conceive that so unspeakable a form of inhumanity would ever be possible again. The twentieth century proved him wrong.

The production of monsters—helpless, twisted monsters whose normal development has been stunted—goes on all around us. But the modern heirs of the comprachicos are smarter and subtler than their predecessors: they do not hide, they practice their trade in the open; they do not buy children,  the children are delivered to them; they do not use sulphur or iron, they achieve their goal without ever laying a finger on their little victims.

The ancient comprachicos hid the operation, but displayed its results; their heirs have reversed the process: the operation is open, the results are invisible. In the past, this horrible surgery left traces on a child’s face, not in his mind. Today, it leaves traces in his mind, not on his face. In both cases, the child is not aware of the mutilation he has
suffered. But today’s comprachicos do not use narcotic powders: they take a child before he is fully aware of reality and never let him develop that awareness. Where nature had put a normal brain, they put mental
retardation.

To make you unconscious for life by means of your own brain, nothing can  be more ingenious.

This is the ingenuity practiced by most of today’s educators.

They are the comprachicos of the mind.

They do not place a child into a vase to adjust his body to its contours.
They place him into a “Progressive” nursery school to adjust him to society.
…
And what do they make of these children?

Monsters.

Why monsters?

To rule.

So begins Ayn Rand’s essay, The Comprachicos, written in 1970. Since then, the comprachicos of the mind have had almost another half century to refine their technique, broaden the front of their attack, and make sure, in their own words, that no child is left behind.

Download and read the whole essay here:  Ayn Rand – The Comprachicos.

Then go do something about it!

Update:  the link to a pdf version of Ayn Rand’s essay has been added

Posted in education, freedoms, human nature, society. Tags: , , , , , . 3 Comments »

Race, religion and gender: the new apartheid in Ontario’s Education System

October 22, 2009 — xanthippa

This issue has me so angry, I apologize ahead of time for the inevitably undisciplined rant I am about to unleash on you!

Why?

Because MY Canada is colour-blind, when it comes to race!

MY Canada is gender-blind, when it comes to sexism!

AND – MY Canada is all inclusive, when it comes to children!!!

And, in my Canada, religious affiliation is irrelevant when it comes to judging a person’s record as a human being!   Thank you very much!

During the last Ontario election, I could not bring myself to vote for the Conservatives….  Their leader, John Tory, proposed a public education system which was fully segregated on the basis of religion!!!

The very suggestion that a child’s religion – or any other ‘protected grounds’, as per our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ought to determine what school that child may or may not attend is so offensive and un-Canadian that it makes me see red!

The Conservatives lost that election:  and rightly so!!!

Aside:  Of course, before the election, I emailed my local Conservative candidate (now my MPP – Member of Provincial Parliament), Lisa MacLeod, asking her if she was indeed in favour of religious apartheid in our schools.  I still have her reply:  it angered me to no end to read that if her leader said so, she totally backed it…  (Perhaps this is the source of my dissatisfaction with my MPP – the ‘first impression’ she made on me, is rooted in this blatant sell-out of our most cherished freedoms, taking our precious children and sorting them by the accident of their birth!  I cannot trust anyone who would sacrifice our children to a doctrine or political party policy!)

And now, the Liberal Premier, Dalton McGuinty, is planning to segregate our schools by sex!  You know, like they do in Saudi Arabia!!!

OK – I need to calm down.  Perhaps it’s ‘definition time’:

Apartheid:

Any policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.

A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.

Separation, segregation <cultural apartheid> <gender apartheid>

A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.

Do I need to go on?

Yes.  Ever since the British North American Act, there has been a religious apartheid in Ontario’s education:  one system for the Catholics, another for the Protestants.  Still, over the years, the ‘Protestant’ system has morphed and become secularized, separating the State from the Religion and keeping it out of the classroom.  The story is quite different when it comes to the Catholic system:  it has become known in Ontario as the SS – Separate Schools!

In my never-humble-opinion, the initials tell the story.  The very first public protest/demonstration I ever participated in was to protest the existence of the SS in our schooling!

Even the corrupt UN had recognized – and ruled – that the SS system in Ontario was in breech of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms.

Predictably, the people of Ontario would not be complicit in this enslavement of our kids to their parent’s religious heritage.  The Liberals did not ‘win’ the election – as unbelievable it was that the universally reviled Dalton McGuinty could be re-elected, the Conservatives carefully and systematically LOST IT!

So, now, Dalton McGuinty (whose kids attend SS schools, and whose wife was a teacher in this corrupt system where government-funded religious indoctrination pollutes the minds of our children) is in power.  Complete control.  And, in no uncertain terms, he is instituting apartheid in our schools!  Apartheid of HIS own choosing!!!

Yes, he is very clear:  religious apartheid has no part in his plan.  That is how the Conservatives LOST EVERYTHING!!!

Instead, on his ‘watch’, we have seen the institution of religious apartheid in at least one school – a ‘pilot project’.

More like a ‘Pilate project!”

Unfortunately -yes.

Our school system now has – and enforces, as its ‘core policy’ – racial apartheid!!!

Here, in Ontario!

I wonder what would people like Martin Luther King, Jr. say about this policy of ‘Equal, but separate‘!!!

But, that is not evil enough for Black Boss McGuinty!

Now, he has decided that sexual segregation ought to become the norm in our schools!!!

OK – I had better stop now – I am just so angry, I cannot put a coherent sentence together.  Let me just say:  fixing our broken school system – but for boys only – is so evil, I don’t know where to start my chain of insults!!!  Sorry.

Still …

A person’s a person – no matter how small!!!

Or, how female!!!

Posted in atheism, education, freedoms, immigrants, opression, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 5 Comments »

Diaspora and our ‘bronze-age-brains’

September 23, 2009 — xanthippa

There are two common-use meanings for this term:  diaspora and Diaspora.

The ‘little d’ diaspora refers to any (more-or-less) peaceful migration or immigration or general re-settlement of a socially cohesive group of people with a well-defined social identity into an already populated area, with no intention of integrating into the host society.  The ‘capital D’ diaspora refers to one specific ‘little d’ diaspora:  the expulsion of Jews from Jerusalem by the Romans and their resultant scattering around the World.

At this point, I am only focusing on ‘little d’ diaspora.

This ‘diaspora’ is a curious concept:  a group of people who share a common ancestry/language/culture/religion – such as a tribe, or a clan, settle in an area already inhabited by ‘different people’.  Once there, they do not attempt to gain the land by conquest:  they either legally purchase it or, if the population density is low, they simply settle there and eventually claim squatter’s rights. So, there is no war.

The ‘newcomers’ are usually not perceived as hostile, so the people in the ‘host culture’ do not harbour hostility towards them.  Or, at least, not particularly so.  At the beginning.

But, we, humans, have come to be who we are by following a certain path of social evolution.

Each one of us is, first and foremost, an individual.  And, even in the most collectivistic of human societies, there is an acknowledgement (or a lament) that we are, indeed, individuals.

This fact that each of us is an individual does not, in any way, change that we are also very social:  we nurture our young and have long learned that pooling our resources can help us survive and succeed.  We don’t always agree on how much of our resources ought to be pooled, and how this pooling ought to be accomplished – but that is a different matter.

Different human societies have indeed reached different states of balance (or, imbalance) between the ‘individual’ and ‘society’.  This is only to be expected, because humans are such a prolific organism that we thrive – or, at least, survive – in greatly varying regions of the world.  These produce very different pressures (stresses) on the different human groups and their social rules that they govern themselves by.  Thus, very different attitudes, moral codes and social rules had developed.

Many people I have talked to seem to think that there is some sort of a ‘universal’ set of rules of ‘morality’ that all people subscribe to.  I am sorry to disappoint these people:  there is no such thing.  It is only because most cultures which had, historically, interacted with each other had been ones which were also in physical proximity:  thus, both a similar set of environmental pressures and long-term contact (such as trade) between the cultures served to spread ideas, learn of each other’s attitudes – in short, served as a ‘normalizing’ pressure on the development of these cultures.  This then gives an ‘appearance’ of ‘universal’ concepts of ‘right and wrong’.

Thus, this ‘universality’ is no more than an appearance.  What worked for one group of people in one specific time and place became their set of ‘right and wrong’.  Sure, if they learned a rule that seemed to produce better results, they usually found a way of incorporating this new rule into their society.  (Often, this was in the form of a new deity – which is why so many monotheistic cultures seem to freeze in their ‘moral’ development… but THAT is a completely different post!)

Isolated cultures are  prime examples of just how different ‘right and wrong’ is, depending on the pressures on the society.  Most ‘mainland’ cultures prospered if there were more offspring:  the more babies born, the more were likely to survive and become productive members of their clan, the better the clan did.  So, in most of these cultures, homosexuality (actually, most activities which would divert natural sex-drive away from baby-production) was forbidden and became considered ‘immoral’.  I remember my Anthropology prof telling us about an isolated culture on a small South Pacific island, where the overpopulation was the stress which drove the development of the society.  On this island, homosexuality was not only permitted, it was considered to be morally superior to heterosexuality!  As a matter of fact, heterosexual sex was taboo for over 300 days of the year…

The same is true of ‘murder’ – the concept of ‘killing another human being’ as ‘bad’ or ‘immoral’ is actually not all that common… as I have ranted on before.

As any physician will readily confirm, our brains are not any different from those of our bronze-age ancestors.  Sure, when we have better nutrition and vitamins, when we grow up mostly free of diseases, our brains develop into a much fuller potential then they would otherwise.  But not all our ancestors were malnurished or ill….  Our brains are have the very same physical characteristics, the same ‘blueprint’, if you will, that the brains of our bronze-age-ancestors did.

What differentiates us from our ancestors is our culture – our learning and our social attitudes.  In other words, ‘culture’ is what ‘defines us’ as ‘us’.

As opposed to ‘them’.

And this ‘them’ concept is extremely important to the way our ‘bronze-age blueprint-of-a-brain’:  because in our bronze-age past, ‘them’ could never really be trusted!  The simple fact that ‘they’ were not ‘us’, but ‘they’ meant that ‘they’ did not have a vested interest in ‘our’ survival.

That is why so many ‘ kings/chieftains’ would marry a daughter of a king/chieftain with whom they had just reached a peace-treaty:  the ‘father-king’ would have a vested interest in the survival of his grand-children, just as the ‘bride-groom-king’ has a vested interest in the survival of his own children.  This marriage and its ‘blood-bond’ reduces the ‘they’ factor and makes both sides see the other as at least a little bit more part of ‘us’.

Which brings me back to the ‘diaspora’:  the very point of a diaspora is that the newcomers do not become part of the ‘us’ which surrounds them. By the very definition of the word ‘diaspora’, these newcomers have a fully formed cultural (which includes religious) identity of their own and are not willing to compromise it in any way – especially through mingling of the blood!

In other words, the newcomers – by their choice – do not become ‘us’ to their neighbours/hosts.

This results in both sides being unable to fully trust each other:  blame our ‘bronze-aged brains’!

Posted in human nature, immigrants, perceptions, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

John Robson: ‘They mean what they say’

September 18, 2009 — xanthippa

An excellent post by Mr. Robson:  “They mean what they say”.

It is not just disrespectful to dismiss what people say they believe and what they will do – it is dangerous.  And arrogant.

John Robson is, yet again, right.

Posted in debate, freedoms, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Will we be complicit in the ‘honour killing’ of Rifqa Bary?

September 18, 2009 — xanthippa

Are we about to hand Fathima Rifqa Bary to the custity of people who swore to murder her?

It would not be unprecedented…

14-year-old Konerak Sinthasomphone escaped from Jeffrey Dahmer, but  the police officers handed the unfortunate boy back to the sadistic murderer, even while smelling the decomposing body of a previous victim…  The cops even laughed about the whole thing!

Have we not learned anything?

Rifqa Bary is a 17-year-old, all-American girl, an honour student, a cheerleader, and a battered child.  Perhaps it was her father’s violence towards her, perhaps it was something else.  The fact remains that Rifqa converted from Islam to Christianity….and, following phone calls and emails to the family from  their local Mosque, her father told her he must kill her to cleanse the family honour of her apostasy.

Fearing for her life, Rifqa fled from her home in Columbus, Ohio, to Florida. She did all the ‘right’ things:  she removed herself from the most immediate danger and directly asked us – the society – to protect her.  The Florida authorities took charge of Rifqa and her ‘case’.

Is she being taken seriously?  Or…

Is she ‘just another rebellious teenager’ – as far as the very people who are supposed to protect her are concerned?

Is she ‘yet another teen run-away’ who ‘ought to be returned home, into the custody of  her parents?

Is she simply an ‘attention-seeking teen’ who ought to learn some respect and obey her parents’ rules?

May be, may be not!

With her life at stake, the ‘authorities’ ought to take great care to find out. That, however, does not seem likely…

If you have not heard Rifqa’s story, it is documented here.  Here is a ‘short version‘ from ‘Atlas Shrugs‘ (her version has MANY links with deeper info).

In a nutshell, in July 2009, the 17-year-old Rifqa got on a bus and fled to Florida.  Now, she is in foster care supervised by the Department of Children and Family in Florida   Juvenile Court Circuit Judge Daniel Dawson, who is presiding over Rifqa’s case, had ordered a report to assess just how much this 17-year-old apostate is in from her family and Mosque, before he decides  Rifqa’s fate.

So far, not that bad.

Except that…

Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) has just released their report – the one which assesses the threat to Rifqa. And, the report is, to say the least, a curious piece of work which could actually endanger this young woman’s life!

The FDLE report is, in my eyes, unexplicable.  Not only did they not interview most of the witnesses and people most close to Rifqa (whom they interrogated for hours, without her lawyer or any other representative present) and then concluded that there were no people who corroborated her story, not only did they disregard the facebook group which bears her name, and whose over a hundred members are openly calling for her death because she is an apostate…they did not even consider an incident which her father ADMITS TO!  They never asked about the incidents her mother admitted to!

But, they respectfully interviewed CAIR (an Islamist organization with known ties to terrorist groups – and which is facing many charges of intimidation against moderate Muslims).  The FDLE even allowed CAIR to control their ‘investigation,’ ‘helping them choose’ whom to interview, and how!

These *#$)(#%$ people actually refused to consider the tradition ‘honour killing’ or how it might relate to Rifqa and her current situation… as in, do her parents and their friends (and co-religionists, along with the prevailing views at the Mosque they take their guidance from) subscribe to the belief that they must kill Rifqa for rejecting Islam and becoming a Christian.

Why?

Quoting the report:

“An investigation into any person, religious or social organization without a specific identifiable criminal predicate is inappropriate.”

Pardon me?

Is this what our society has been reduced to?

Here is ‘Center for Security Policy’s’ review of the FDLE report – the FDLE report is included.

Now, please, excuse me – I have to go shopping for a burka…


Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »

Help an ex-Muslim! Please…

September 15, 2009 — xanthippa

Criss says it all:

The petition is here.

Posted in atheism, freedoms, immigrants, opression, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »
« Older posts
Newer posts »