Archive for March, 2012
So I was surfing around WordPress and reading some other peoples blogs, I like to add new categories for me to review and use to broaden my horizons and find answers. Today I added Islamic to my categories and boy oh boy what I found!
It was a treasure trove of sick, fucked up, shit that they believe is their right to do.
For instance I came across a blog that mentioned having came across a rather depraved book called “A Gift for the Muslim Couple“. This seems like an innocent enough title right? WRONG!
Here are some quotes the blogger gave as examples of just how fucked up this book and the people that follow these beliefs truly are:
“In the book’s opening pages, it is written that “it might be necessary to restrain her with strength or even to threaten her.”
Later, its author advises that “the husband should treat the wife with kindness and love, even if she tends to be stupid and slow sometimes.” ”
How fucked up is that? You may be required to restrain her or threaten her? Why the fuck would you threaten the woman you claim to have undying love for?
“Page 45 contains the rights of the husband, which include his wife’s inability to leave “his house without his permission,” and that his wife must “fulfil his desires” and “not allow herself to be untidy … but should beautify herself for him … ” ”
Ok… this one is a bit difficult for me to be angry over. Honestly my wife and I have a similar situation to this but not due to religious context. This is a lifestyle choice we have made due to her demeanor when dealing with the outside world, It is easier, on her, to use me as a buffer and keep her contained within her palace. But this also has nothing to do with restraining her against her will or requiring punishment when she does want to go out.
“In terms of physical punishment, the book advises that a husband may scold her, “beat by hand or stick,” withhold money from her or “pull (her) by the ears,” but should “refrain from beating her excessively.” “
Again I say, what the fuck?! Ok, I know people like being caned, and I know it’s a huge turn on for people to have that kind of shit happen, but again it is not meant as a religious or personal punishment, it is typically used as a form of sexual release. Though I am glad they thought to add “refrain from beating her excessively.”
The writer went on to talk a little more about the theme of the book:
Male dominance over women has been making headlines for some time, with the recent lengthy trial and conviction of the Shafia family.
Mohammad Shafia, 59, his second wife, Tooba Yahya, 42, and their son, Hamed, 21, were each convicted in January on four counts of first-degree murder in what was characterized as an honour killing of four female family members as punishment for disobedience. They were handed life sentences with no chance of parole for 25 years.
Shafia’s three daughters and his first wife were found drowned in a car at the bottom of the Rideau Canal in Kingston, Ont., in June 2009.
Now I have never condemned someone for having multiple mates, polygamy is fine by me, so I realize the idea of “the woman you have undying love for” can mean something different in different cultures and circumstances, but to kill them due to “defamation”, and especially to kill your children, your own fucking children.
This is amazing to me, because I have to remember that even though they call him something different Muslim’s even these extreme ones worship the christian “god”. And for such a supposed superior being to condone something like this is maddening to me. This is not a religious right, it’s criminal and I think anyone who subscribes to the thought processes in this book should be on the receiving end of it’s advice.
Then after all of that I came across yet another blog that talked about Pakistan having almost 1,000 women and girls killed for “defaming” their family. This stretches the gamut from claims (yes claims there is no tangible proof) of illicit sexual activities, to also include marrying without permission. Can you imagine what would happen if a Muslim Extremist convention come through Las Vegas with the right to commit “honor killing”?!
Here are some of the numbers quoted in the article:
- 595 women killed because they were accused of Illicit Sexual Activities
- 219 women killed for marrying without permission
- 20 women were provided medical attention before dying
That’s 20 out of over 800 just accounted for in that small list that received any form of remorse from what is often their family, fathers, brothers, sons, uncles or grandfathers. Not to mention the article mentioned that some of them were raped or gang raped before being killed. That means the same faces that these women started their days with are likely the faces they saw in the last moments of their life, contorted in violence and hate towards the women that depend upon these same men for safety and comfort. But if we think like these people this should not be disgusting to me, this is the will of god and an act of mercy.
Wait there’s more… this is a day for fucked up articles.
EXTRA EXTRA READ ALL ABOUT IT!!!
” ISLAMABAD: The minister for national harmony has alleged that about 100 non-Muslims, mostly Hindus girls, were forced to convert to Islam in recent months. “
What the fuck? Really? Forcing hindu girls to become Muslim’s? WHY?! (this takes Mandated Worship to the extreme)
Here are some quotes from the article and my responses, the quotes are in italics, my responses are in bold:
“Learning the basic principals and teaching of Islam should be made obligatory, under the proposed laws for all those non-Muslims who decided to embrace Islam.”
A friend of mine is a very serious Muslim. And he explained that they don’t even force their children to look towards Islam and only speak of their beliefs when asked directly. This is in direct opposition to forced conversion.
“I am not sure about the exact number of such cases in the absence of accurate data for such incidents, but the figure of such cases is about 100,” he said. Gill added that the minority members of the Parliament have recommended that the federal government introduce legislation to check forced conversion.
Why has there not been situations like this earlier? Do women not matter that much to the Christian faiths? Oh I know, they’re just vessels for children.
The minister cited ‘sexual lust’ as the key reason that made Muslim men force non-Muslim girls to convert. “The Hindu girls were being sexually abused by the young Muslim men who forced them to convert when their sexual offence became an issue in the society,” he explained.
Wait.. wait… what? You’re telling me that they are justifying forced conversion with rape? Now which one is worse? Living in the western world where we worship our women to a fault, makes this concept seem very foreign to me. That these young men have gotten away with sexually abusing young women to a point that to answer it becoming an issue they forced them to convert, most likely making it suddenly legal to continue sexually abusing these women.
“Those young people accept such girls as their legal wives with the pre-condition that they embrace Islam. The girls were kidnapped by young men and after meeting their sexual desire they were forced to change their religion and convert to Islam,” Gill said.
So they raped them, they kidnapped them, forced them to marry them, with the pre-condition that they embrace Islam, rape them again and then enforce their conversion to Islam. Why does this not sound completely fucked up?! And we wonder why slavery and human trafficking still exists in these parts of the world.
This alone tells me that considerations for the Islamic religion may be held for a while until this stuff starts to come under control. Culture is a big part of religion, and I can tell you with all confidence, I can’t even imagine a god that would condone such actions towards the mothers of the world.
I was over reading mrgoodnkinky’s blog where he wrote about Christians Stealing, Lying and Killing. While there wasn’t much about them killing he did have some interesting points about them stealing theme’s from other pre-existing cultures to create the story of the Old Testament. Such as the story of creation referring to the Sumerian epic of creation.
Read more here.
This made me think more on my post about the origin of fire. Many cultures have a tale that shows the origin of fire, but I honestly have never heard the version used in the bible, I will have to try to locate it.
Over on AlterNet.com I read an article entitled How Religion’s Demand for Obedience Keeps Us in the Dark Ages.
“But while the secular arguments for dictatorship have been greatly weakened, the religious arguments for it have scarcely changed at all. Religion is very much a holdover from the dark ages of the past, and the world’s holy books still enshrine the ancient demands for us to bow down and obey the (conveniently unseen and absent) gods, and more importantly, the human beings who claim the right to act as their representatives. It’s no surprise, then, that the most fervent advocates of religion in the modern world are also the most deeply inculcated with this mindset of command and obedience.”
This reminded me of my recent post on Mandated Worship. It is amazing how most religions depend on a mass of people to make them work. I enjoyed this article very much and it reminds me that while listening to the words the person standing next to me speaks I should hold them in contempt until he has proven his claims through tangible fact.
Often the debate between Atheist’s and Theists are all about the facts. The fact of evolution, the fact of existence, the fact of the fact. It goes on and on, neither side truly making head-way.
One of the questions I often ask of anyone that claims to have the existence of another influencing my thoughts and fate is “Where did fire come from?”
I mean, the Greeks had Prometheus, just about every native american culture has a story where they were provided fire by a superior being, even the Norse had a means as to how they got fire.
Now Atheists will answer quite simply along the lines of “it was an accident” citing the creation of tools and sparks igniting brush or what ever slight difference between the variations occurred. No matter how an Atheist answers it usually relates to happening upon the situation. And honestly, I’ve had personal experiences that can help me imagine the validity of this claim. Granted, no-one can verify who was the first to figure out fire, or even if that person had a name.
Now an idea I have a serious issue wrapping my head around is that we were just granted such knowledge by a superior being. The Greeks had Prometheus have his liver eaten out of his body everyday only to have it regrow while he slept. In most native american legends have the god showing or bestowing fire upon us, similar means are used in Norse mythology.
Now I can even also accept someone coming down the mountain running like hell to give a human a means of creating flame like a baton. But the one concept that I cannot accept is that we just suddenly “knew” how to make fire. We are not born with such knowledge, so obviously it has to be learned, that right there makes me disbelieve that “god” or “gods” bestowed us with such knowledge.
So in my opinion, this had to be a discovery, and very likely by accident.
Do you have a tangible reference to prove your claim of the origin of fire?
So if you’re reading this at the time of posting you probably came to this blog from one of very few sources. One of such sources is a blog that I am constantly engaging in debate over the topics chosen to be posted about. This blog has some other people that enjoy debating with the writer, one of which is known as Steve by the writer of the blog, I like to refer to him by his chosen display name imnotandrei.
Now imnotandrei is constantly referring to a bible passage. At first I ignored it not thinking anything of it. I will be honest I have not read the bible in it’s entirety, which is something I intend on changing soon (a blog series in the making). But after a couple of times of him referring to it and the writer of the blog not responding to it I got curious and looked it up.
I liked what I found…
“Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye;
and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”
– King James Version Bible
This one seems kind of formal to me, I honestly prefer the World English Bible version.
“You hypocrite! First remove the beam out of your own eye,
and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye.”
This speaks volumes to me, it doesn’t say “God exists because this passage holds a kings ransom worth of meaning.” what it does say is that Christianity has a reference towards their response to hypocrisy. The issue is these days there is a ton of hypocrisy in all of the major religions, they want you to accept them while rejecting you.
Conversion does not come by force, or have we not learned that lesson from the past? Hello Hitler, hello King Henry II and Phillip II… the list goes on and they are not of only a single religion. But, religious and cultural conflict seems to be what spurs most of our histories wars. Maybe if these leaders had referred back to Matthew 7:5 and considered it prior to their actions maybe they would have considered a different outcome.
But we see hypocrisy even in everyday interaction with others. For instance often if we see someone that does not fit our social preference we will scoff or comment negatively about their appearance or demeanor. Yet if someone does the same to us we become offended and defensive of our freedoms and choices.
Many religions have a similar message to Matthew 7:5.
What is your favorite proverb, passage, phrase, reed or what ever you want to call it that relates to dealing with hypocrisy?
One of the main things I don’t understand about organized worship is the fact that it is mandated and if you don’t do it you are a bad [insert religion of preference here]. This tactic is described very well at a friend of mine’s blog [here]. He breaks of the moral axes of a person into five categories and it seems that mandated worship easily falls into his second moral axis, Adherence to Authority.
He describes mandated worship by saying, “…legends of your group are the correct ones, the leaders of your group are the correct ones, because this is your group and to question these will bring you into conflict with the first moral axis…”
This is a great definition, but it needs a little more, oh wait, you find that in his third moral axis which he calls Purity/Disgust. He goes on to say, “What often occurs in societies is that this disgust reaction gets tied through cultural and peer reinforcement with other possible actions.” This is how we “encourage” others to stay with us and continue in mandated worship, through peer pressure and hallow promises/threats.
But what makes me curious is this, if gods exist, whether it it be a monotheist god or a pantheon of gods.
- Why do they mandate worship?
- Why do they care whether we worship them or not?
- What is the motivating factor for one man to push worship of a god onto another aside from affirmation of choice?
- If gods require worship and prayer from us, what does that do for them?
Ok let me elaborate on a few of these questions a bit.
Why do they mandate worship?
This is one of the things that has always gotten me about the many Christian religions, most of them have worship two or three times a week including Sunday school or some other religious education programs. This can easily equal out to a full work day worth of time spent in worship. But why? Does it make me a better person to whisper my fears, wishes and “sins” into my hand, the ground, or to an obscured face? I’ve tried each for quite some time, none of which made me feel any different when I walked out. My fears were still there, my wishes were unanswered even the smallest of them, and I felt no mystical weight lifted from me when I confessed what others consider negative activity.
Why do they care whether we worship them or not?
If gods made everything and have the power to manipulate anything they want, why do they even care whether we worship them or not? Why do they care whether we even know they exist? Wouldn’t it be easier to stay a transparent force unhindered by the constant nag of the pain and suffering of mortals? It seems that we as humans make gods in our own images more so than gods make us in their image. We perform transference and place human emotions onto beings that are beyond emotion, something that can change reality with the snap of a finger would not get angry, they would not become jealous or fretful of a situation. They would just bat an eyelash and you would not exist, or what they didn’t like would be changed. The description of a god does not match the psychology we placed upon gods.
What is the motivating factor for one man to push worship of a god onto another aside from affirmation of choice?
This is the one thing that seems to be the most truth behind Mandated Worship. It is not the god that mandates it, it is the person standing beside you. They need you there to affirm that their choice was the correct one. This is the same across multiple fields, whether it be religion, politics, even what sports team to follow. We started as a communal culture, slowly we are pulling away from this frame of mind, but the lasting impression is the fact that we need affirmation of choice. We need the person next to us doing exactly what we are doing or else we lose motivation and stop.
If gods require worship and prayer from us, what does that do for them?
What do gods get from prayer? I know some theories are that they get their power from prayer, that they cannot effect our world without enough prayer to empower them. But if this is the case, why would we want to worship “gods” since they are in effect nothing more than another form of man with some special abilities. All in all I doubt gods are over glorified therapists wanting to hear all of your dirty little secrets.
I do have respect for those religions that do not mandate worship. I can’t help but connect a statement I heard from a Christian and a story I was told by an ex-farm hand in Texas. They are as follows:
Christian: “As a Minister of God I must tend my flock.”
Texan: “We used to get the flock of sheep together and use a Judas goat to lead them into the train cars. He was smart enough that he would lead them right in circle them around and get out before we shut the doors, but the sheep were to stupid to follow him out once he confused them by turning them in circles.”
So if you compare the two statements. The farm hand was tending his flock by using a Judas goat, which I found out got such a name due to the fact that it betrays the sheep that depend on the goat to help lead them, much like what I know of the story of Christ and Judas. But to tend his flock the farm hand must confuse them to keep them together and contained. A minister is a person who has studied to translate “the word of god” into their own words so they can relay a relative message to “their flock”. This message in itself is meant to confuse the person because it may not be the way they understand the passage, but they must conform to what their minister says or else the person sitting next to them may become agitated and no-one wants to disrupt the group.
So after thinking about these questions I do not find a reason for mandated worship.
Now let me ask you, why do you worship?
So I was commenting over at a blog based around Christian Apologetic’s (here). And the writer of the blog recommended that I should have taken philosophy to better understand my senses, or at least to understand how to use them to quantify reality. I have never seen a situation where philosophy has provided unarguable evidence towards their claim. It is usually a hypothesis at best and can usually be discredited by the simplest of questions such as “Why?”, “Where?”, “When?” or “How?”
When you can argue a claim with such simple rebuttals, I don’t see any reason to waste my time with such things. I would rather read about someones tangible discovery like uncovering the pyramids or ancient North American Artifacts from days of the Mayans or Aztec. Instead people who rely purely on philosophy seem more involved in stories and assumptions that they almost never look to the most important questions of all, those stated above.
So I am now curious why I would waste time and money to take a philosophy class when I hold the whole concept in contempt. To create a conclusion based on belief and concept does not seem logical to me. Instead I would rather base a conclusion off of tangible fact and evidence of the process that was used to come to the conclusion.
I appeal to those people that rely only or mostly on philosophy to explain how they can use the concepts of others to base their facts on?
I am also curious what your thoughts would be it someone found your philosophy was completely false? Would you argue to your last breath in defense of your philosophy or would you accept the tangible facts and move on?
I urge everyone to ask those simple four questions whenever they read something claiming to be fact, if the information within the text does not answer those questions with tangible foolproof evidence, then you must accept that at some point it will be proven incorrect.
Philosophy like a hypothesis is an educated guess at something unknown. If the unknown cannot be explained with facts and evidence then it should be studied and put to the tests of science and inquiry not explained through assumption and mystical forces.
So, at this point, I do not believe philosophy is worth no more than an exercise to expand critical thinking and reminding us to think outside of the box.
Hello everyone, welcome to my blog.
This blog isn’t going to move very fast at first, hopefully it will move faster as we progress but for the time being hopefully I can get about one post a week out at the beginning.
My reason for only expecting to post once a week or so is because I want to perform as much research as possible related to the given subject.
Here are my methods to find relevance within the subjects that I will be focusing on:
- Read/Listen to the claim
- Validate the claim through a majority (typically using Internet searches to find others with similar beliefs)
- Inquiry – I will attempt to contact someone that seems to have a firm understanding of the subject in question and ask questions related to my skepticism.
- Find proof of tangible evidence
- If tangible evidence is not obtainable I will attempt to locate solid claims with verifiable proof
Each of these are important by themselves but together in my opinion they create a rock solid case for truth. To get me to completely believe a statement they will have to pass four out of five of these categories. If it passes three, then I will conclude that it is plausible, but not confirmed meaning that more proof would need to be available for a confirmed decision.