Censured? They do worse than that. They make threats of eternal torture.
Fortunately that is a rather empty threat even if they do find people
who are gullible enough to believe it, but unfortunately there are all
too many instances of here and now torture for not following the various
religions to the letter. Burning people alive for a minor heresy may
have been more frequent in the middle ages, but DAESH made a rather
recent video of their doing the same thing just recently.
---
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 3/22/2019 11:18 AM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
For the most part I find people in all walks of life to be driven by
different forces. Some are angry, some are frightened, some are in
need of a leader while others are driven by the need to serve others.
But what bothers me most about the various religions of the World is
the insistence that each one is the absolute correct religion, and any
who do not follow it exactly as they are told, will be censured. The
same is true for the various political philosophies. I quit the
Democrat Party after Obama proved to be a lackey of the American
Corporate Empire(ACE). I call myself Progressive, but if someone
started up a Progressive Party, I would probably not like all of their
rules.
In fact, if I formed a new political party, I would probably fight
with myself and quit.
Carl Jarvis
On 3/21/19, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> wrote:
My experience mirrors yours, Carl. I have known many more atheists than
I can count and not one was driven by hatred. I can't say the same thing
about religious people, though. That is not to say that all religious
people are driven by hate. In fact,, most of them are not. However, the
ones who are driven by hate are all religious and most often use their
religion as a justification for their hatred.
---
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 10:01 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Mostafa,
I beg to differ with your remarks regarding Atheists. Among my many
acquaintances I number a significant number of Atheists. None, not a
single one of these Atheists, many of whom I've known for half a
century or better, not one of these good, caring people are driven by
Hatred. Most are people I have labored alongside, in the field of
social service. I, as a devout Agnostic, am also filled with love for
my fellow human beings.
This is the problem with Labels. We can generalize and then declare
all whom we label, to be possessing of the same characteristics. Life
is not so simple.
Carl Jarvis
On 3/21/19, Mostafa Almahdy <mostafa.almahdy@xxxxxxxxx> 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
