Well, Faith has also been used to help people. There's that Catholic group who
lives in poverty stricken neighborhoods throughout the US for the sole purpose
of being of assistance to the people. I think that's called The Catholic
Workers' Movement, but I'm not sure. There's The American Friends' Service
Committee which works for truth and justice and helps people all over the
world, and is doing a lot for Palestinian children. There are several Muslim
groups that have a similar purpose that are here in the US. CARE is one of
them. Of course, one can work for truth and justice and dispense charity
without being motivated by religious faith. But it happens that religious faith
does motivate many people to do very positive things in the world. It has also
been the inspiration for many beautiful works of art and pieces of classical
music, as well as our Negro spirituals.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roger Loran Bailey
(Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 8:22 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Mostafa Almahdy <mostafa.almahdy@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Discussions about Religion
Faith has most certainly been used as an excuse for some pretty despicable acts
including out and out genocide, but even without these despicable acts there is
plenty of reason to hate faith for just being faith. Faith is the act of
believing a given proposition or set of propositions without any regard
whatsoever to reason or evidence. That just about guarantees false beliefs and
false beliefs that will be clung to no matter what kind of demonstrable
evidence can be arrayed against them. That means that anyone who loves truth
must hate faith.
---
Carl Sagan
“ The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be
counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be
consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not
determine what's true. ”
― Carl Sagan
On 3/21/2019 7:05 PM, Mostafa Almahdy wrote:
Well, just for the fact that I am not typically available on a casual
basis, I'd miss plenty of threads that have been sent in the last
couple of sidereal days or so. It is plain that each and everyone here
resembles his own singular experience regarding faith and its related
issues. Faith in the west has primarily been used as a symbolic
gesture to indicate and extensively influence white supremacy. The
recently detonated callous terror assault on two Mosques in New
Zealand last Friday proves this proposition. Friday is the Sabbath
for Muslims and therefore, the two Mosques were filled with
worshippers. The murderer knew that and thence, his intent was to kill
a substantial amount of individuals beforehand to cause intimidation
among immigrants to the west from the Muslim world. Brenton Tarrant, a
pseudonym used by that demented terrorist who was allegedly Aussie,
has labeled his firearms that he used in the shooting with abhorrently
racist, detestable and xenophobic remarks that are pertained to
specific dates during which Catholic Crusaders subordinated Muslims
through imposing consecutive expeditions. As announced in major news
bulletins, the terrorist admitted in his lengthy manifesto his
attraction to Trump. He described him in his 74-page long dossier as
"a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose." I auspicated
his ascendency onto the whole incident ahead to this implicitly
motivational affiliation. While Trump may have not directly
perpetrated this insensate carnage, he certainly has prompted its
motif. Religion is gravely abused to justify extremism in the west,
perhaps more than here. Faith haters are hornswoggled. Religion is
abducted for viciously political objectives. This is the case for
Islam as it is unethically perverted by rambunctiously fringe elements
as of Da'ish and others which are mainly designed by the CIA.
Christendom has been stiflingly pirated by majorly white supremacists
in the United States and beyond. So, faith is not to be scolded if
some people unfalteringly sullied its essence. This introduction is
absolutely significant because it provides a denotative tie to my last
post. While faith is immensely despised by Atheists in general, they
typically do not expose their actual motive for that which is nothing
but hate. It's hate that is sufficient to fill out an ocean. In the
fifties of the last century, Americans demonised socialism. While the
latter has its pros and cons, it has been strained to justify hate and
racial disparity against certain nations for essentially political
purposes. So to everyone here, analogically, the concept of religion
in itself hasn't ever been a problem for anyone. Just as any
philosophical or doctrinal tenet, it doesn't directly incite evil
unless someone deliberately profanes it for his own interest. So, the
second amendment, for instance, is a stiffly codified legal authority
which is indispensably indentured to the United States Constitution.
While the text itself doesn't incite nor provoke violence as we shall
notice below, it has been purposefully misconstrued by mainly gun
lobbyists to justify the broad merchandise of deadly firearms in civil
sphere. As I'd defined it earlier, lobbyism is the strenuous strive to
influence public officials and executives in favor of specific
sentiment or notion. Subsequent to the deadly assault on two Mosques
in Christchurch New Zealand last Friday, the prime minister has
announced the ban of military style firearms. Furthermore, in
compliance to this regulation, New Zealanders are expected to
volitionally hand over their weapons to authorities. Also, she
directed officials to develop a gun buyback scheme for those who
already own such weapons. She said “fair and reasonable compensation”
would be paid. She will return to Christchurch tomorrow for a
nationwide reflection. The Muslim call to prayer will be broadcast
around the country on television and radio and will be followed by a
two-minute silence. The commemoration ceremony is scheduled to begin
at noon. It should be held at a Park opposite to one of the two
Mosques that have witnessed the attack in Deans Ave, Christchurch.
This positive temperament vividly reflects absolute tolerance,
deference and solidarity. I therefore sent her a thanking message,
prayed to her and her people. I am not wholly against the west and if
something has been done as an expression of tribute to my Muslim
fellows in New Zealand, it has to be fairly recognised. This is what
Islam has taught me. Now, a question, after one mass shooting in New
Zealand, the government reacted quickly and firearms have been banned.
While in Capitol Hill, congressional staff are spiked and bribed by
NRA to keep the situation unaltered, despite the perennial occurrence
of mass shootings across the country. Another question though, if this
assault had occurred on a Mosque in the States, would've the
government reacted similarly? So, which one is to be reasonably
described as a genuinely democratic entity? Washington or Wellington?
The United States lectures the world on human rights principles.
Nonetheless, it demonstrably exhibits in imperious manner incomparable
adequacy to measuredly bend and deform potentially efficacious statute
law that has proposed by some senators to enforce gun reform. It's
evidentiary that congressional staff are perfect at breaching human
rights and assaying loopholes. After the mass shooting in Florida
secondary school which claimed the lives of seventeen innocent souls,
students demanded congress to enact gun control, but this has never
happened. Congressional staff are enamored with catching legislative
equivocalnesses. And as for the second amendment, it clearly doesn't
incite or justify gun violence. The Second Amendment of the United
States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and
bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I'd like to draw the situation as
namely. The way many Americans fathom the second amendment is pretty
much equal to the way southern evangelists would relate the text of
the Koran or Hadith. They'd just take the text out of context to
viciously make it fit their interest. So, as for the text above, what
does it talk about? It basically talks about a well regulated militia,
what is this? Those are ordinary civilians trained as soldiers but
not part of the regular army. So, it doesn't talk about jackleg
individuals bearing arms. It talks about reserves. The second sentence
says, being necessary to the security of a free state, so it talks
about a specific condition as of subjection or clamp down by the
government. Within this quite prodigious situation, the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. So, if the
government exercised military means to subdue civilians, they have the
right to bear arms and execute their usage in defence of themselves
and their families. They are stipulated to be indisciplined, they must
be trained on the use of such dangerous weapons. So, typically, the
initial segment of the text which reads, a well regulated militia
being necessary to the security of a free state is intentionally
disposed. Although what follows is inevitably tied to the first part,
it is deliberately neglected. You may just ponder on the sentence that
says, being necessary to the security of a free state. It requires
necessity which is the condition of being noticeably indispensable.
Honestly, the text of the second amendment is a jural gem that is
unfortunately, left in the hands of utterly incompetent people. The
vicious misinterpretation of the second amendment is explicitly
designated to misguide lay people. It is strictly plain as of its
significance. I've spoke to certified English speaking barristers
about my discernment of the second amendment's essence and they
concurred with me. I respectfully urge Americans to redress their
incorrect apprehension of the second amendment. It must be looked at
with plainly juristic discretion. I've written this thorough editorial
to broadly publicise my rumination. Ranging from hate of faith,
lobbying disbursements to religious extremism emersion in the west,
I'd reckon that worse is yet to come, unless proper edification is
earnestly implemented in American public and private education
sectors. Thank you for patiently reading, Mustafa