It might be because you taunted him when he didn't post anything. It might be
because he doesn't like being talked about in the third person. It might be
because he doesn't like being patronized.
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 9:16 PM
To: Mostafa Almahdy <mostafa.almahdy@xxxxxxxxx>; blind-democracy
<blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Discussions about Religion
Now Mostafa, you showed us that you know how to be respectful and tolerant with
your message to the Prime Minister of New Zealand. So why is that right after
that you have to now revert to this childishness again? Is it just that you
save your disrespectful vitriol for people who show the failings of your logic?
Is it that you save your tantrums for people who question your insistence that
they swallow your declamations about fairy tale characters? Or is it that you
just accidentally showed some respect for once and now want to correct yourself
and go back to the taunting?
---
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 9:01 PM, Mostafa Almahdy wrote:
It'll be fair to just consider you a mere hater despite your hide
behind reason and science.
On 3/22/19, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> wrote:
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