elbertcounty.net

"Just the facts M'am, Just the facts." -- Sgt. Joe Friday

You are here: Home / Archives for Religion

The Marxist dialectic

By Leave a Comment

The “philosophical framework” of the Marxist dialectic requires belief to a certainty that the inevitable future state [“higher level of understanding”] is communism.

The Marxist belief system based in future certainty, makes Christian beliefs based on hope, look naive. Why would a Marxist mess around with an uncertain belief when they already know what’s going to happen?

The only way to counter Marxist belief is to disengage. Deny it an “antithesis” to fight. Marxists will still try to create the antithesis their model requires to “progress” through “any means possible”.

And “any means possible” have no moral constraints. None. There’s nothing they won’t do to save the future they know.

MarxistDialecticDownload

Revolution persists

By

Recent events in Ferguson, other American cities, not to mention Syria, Iraq and the Ukraine, all host to rampage and destruction, have affirmed the enduring nature of the French Revolution.

“The pagan religions of antiquity were always more or less linked up with the political institutions and the social order of their environment, and their dogmas were conditioned to some extent by the interests of the nations, or even the cities, where they flourished. A pagan religion functioned within the limits of a given country and rarely spread beyond its frontiers. It sometimes sponsored intolerance and persecutions, but very seldom embarked on missionary enterprises. This is why there were no great religious revolutions in the Western World before the Christian era. Christianity, however, made light of all the barriers which had prevented the pagan religions from spreading, and very soon won to itself a large part of the human race. I trust I shall not be regarded as lacking in respect for this inspired religion if I say it partly owed its triumph to the fact that, far more than any other religion, it was catholic in the exact sense, having no links with any specific form of government, social order, period, or nation.

The French Revolution’s approach to the problems of man’s existence here on earth was exactly similar to that of the religious revolutions as regards his afterlife. It viewed the “citizen” from an abstract angle, that is to say as an entity independent of any particular social order, just as religions view the individual, without regard to nationality or the age he lives in. It did not aim merely at defining the rights of the French citizen, but sought also to determine the rights and duties of men in general towards each other and as members of a body politic.

It was because the Revolution always harked back to universal, not particular, values and to what was the most “natural” form of government and the most “natural” social system that it had so wide an appeal and could be imitated in so many places simultaneously.

No previous political upheaval, however violent, had aroused such passionate enthusiasm, for the ideal the French Revolution set before it was not merely a change in the French social system but nothing short of a regeneration of the whole human race. It created an atmosphere of missionary fervor and, indeed, assumed all the aspects of a religious revival–much to the consternation of contemporary observers. It would perhaps be truer to say that it developed into a species of religion, if a singularly imperfect one, since it was without a God, without a ritual or promise of a future life. Nevertheless, this strange religion has, like Islam, overrun the whole world with its apostles, militants, and martyrs.”

Alexis de Tocqueville, The Old Régime and the French Revolution, 1858.
Translated by Stuart Gilbert, 1978, pp. 12-13.

Webster on religion

By

Webster’s defines religion as “a belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshiped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe.” So, some god or gods created and rule the universe, and they must be obeyed and worshiped.

Scientists estimate that the observable universe contains at least a hundred billion galaxies. A galaxy can contain hundreds of billions of solar systems. A solar system can contain many planets and moons.

In short, we don’t know the limits of the universe, however man appears to have an unlimited capacity for adornment.

We have at least 75 major religions each with their own explanation about the god or gods who created and rule this universe. These religions tell us, forcefully in some cases, how those creators and rulers must be obeyed and worshiped.

And some terrible things are predicted to happen to those who don’t obey and worship, including murder and hell. Granted, most devout religious followers aren’t so severe in their punishments. But some estimate as many as tens of millions consider it okay to kill unbelievers.

We have a combinatorial explosion of religious beliefs competing for our devotion, and not a one of them can be objectively proven true for the physical universe as we know it.

This is the challenge faith must overcome and over 8 in 10 people around the world agree with faith.

Back when the known universe was the sun, moon, earth and a few planets, religious beliefs were no less difficult to prove, and the bar was set much lower.

Bruce S. Thornton

By

The Costs of the Environmentalism Cult

The central mistake of the romantic environmentalist is to gloss over the profound differences between human beings and the natural world. We are not “natural” creatures. What makes us human is everything that exists nowhere else in the natural world: the mind, language, consciousness, memory, higher emotions, and culture. None of these exist even in the highest primates. Apes do not craft tools, marry, name their offspring, bury their dead, live by laws or customs, or respect inalienable rights. This radical uniqueness of human identity means that we do not have a “harmonious” relationship with nature, but an adversarial and conflicted one. The natural world is the alien, inhuman realm of blind force, indifferent to suffering, death, and beauty. It is meaningless, for only humans bestow meaning on the world. And that meaning reflects our knowledge that each of us is unique, a creature that appears only once, and that each of us must die.

Most important, unlike everything else in the natural world ruled by necessity, humans are free. As French critic Luc Ferry writes, “Man is free enough to die of freedom.” And from that freedom comes morality, all the things we are obligated to do or not do, particularly in regard to our fellow humans. The nexus of consciousness of our individual uniqueness and necessary death, our freedom to choose to act against nature’s determinism, and our moral obligations to one another is what makes us unnatural––and human. Nature is our home only by dint of our alteration of it to make it suitable for such creatures, and that process is one of conflict and struggle against the brutal forces of extinction and destruction that have characterized the natural world for the 3.6 billion years life has existed.

The unnatural uniqueness of humans makes talk of “harmony” with nature the Disneyesque fantasy of rich people protected from nature’s cruelty by a high-tech civilization. Thus the proper view of nature should be how do we interact with our world and use its resources in order to benefit the greatest number of humans today, and to ensure that those who come after us have the resources to live well. Every environmental policy should start with that assumption. And we should determine the goods we want from nature––from economic development to the preservation of natural beauty––through the democratic process, not by the diktats of self-selected elites who mask their preferences as science rather than taste, and enlist the coercive power of the federal government to impose those subjective preferences at the expense of the well-being of everybody else.

As it is today, the biggest beneficiaries of our civilization indulge a sentimentalized nature love the cost of which is borne by others. They attack the technology and the free-market economic system that have created the unprecedented wealth, comfort, and leisure that they take for granted, but that their policies deny to others less privileged. The irrationalism and hypocrisy of modern environmentalism is a “black-market religion,” as Chantal Delsol puts it, a feel-good cult that makes its adherents feel superior to the grubby masses and the corporate barbarians who create the wealth and products that make their existence possible. Meanwhile jobs are not created, economic growth is burdened by costly regulations, and our national interests are compromised by the failure to exploit our country’s resources. That’s too high a price to pay just so some people can enjoy a pleasing fantasy.

Greens spending the gold

By

Big Money And Radical Activists Lurk Behind Fracking Bans Across Front Range

October 16, 2013

By

Cliff Willmeng cropped

Cliff Willmeng, seen here on Facebook expressing his views to oil and gas executives, is a key leader in a network of hyper-confrontational activists who guide the anti-fracking movement in Colorado

The debate over the fracking bans in Broomfield, Fort Collins and Lafayette on the November ballot has been a heated one in recent months, with plenty of media coverage of claims by opponents of fracking.

But missing from any media coverage of the ideological crusade against fracking is the checkered history of the most influential voices in the anti-fracking movement, and the underground money machine that sustains it. [Read more…]

Psalm 140

By

I’ve known Keith casually for more than a few years now.  We’re actually related on some not-too-long shirt tail.  I kid around with the Abbey’s because they seem to enjoy it so much.  If you aren’t smiling they’ll figure out a way to change that.  Maybe they’re just generous to an old kidder.  Anyway, Keith became a pastor at Graceway Church in Kiowa.  I don’t know if he was speaking to me in an official capacity, but assuming he was, Pastor Keith pointed a biblical passage out to me yesterday while we were visiting with each other at a commissioners meeting:

Psalm 140

I think he’s on to something.

B_Imperial

ACLU Key Issues

By

From the ACLU 50-State Survey for January of 2012:

  • Access to abortion and birth control. [Must keep killing babies.]
  • Equal treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered. [Must treat those who display sexual preference the same as those who do not.]
  • Protection against racial profiling and discrimination by law enforcement. [Must not profile those most likely to commit terrorism.]
  • Equal access for eligible residents to vote. [As opposed to citizens.]
  • Non-preferential treatment of any one religion by the government. [Except Islam.]
  • Preventing the teaching of creationism and intelligent design from interfering with the teaching of evolution in public school science classes. [When government sanctions a theory it must be protected.  See global warming.]

Let’s see: infant death and dismemberment, sexual obsession, terrorism, illegal aliens, Sharia, spurious government science.  That’s an impressive series of harmful policies to rack up by one organization in one fund-raising mailer.  How did I get on this nutjob mailing list?  Yeah I’m going to send them a check, where’s my pen?

Thank you American law schools.

more Islamic injustice

By

So, what is it that the Nation of Islam followers see in Islam anyway?

‘Al-Ghazali puts these words into the mouth of God: “These to bliss, and I care not; and these to the Fire, and I care not.” As disturbing as this expression of divine indifference may seem, it is clearly based on a supporting Hadith: “Abu Darda’ reported that the Holy Prophet said: Allah created Adam when He created him. Then He stroke his right shoulder and took out a white race as if they were seeds, and He stroke his left shoulder and took out a black race as if they were charcoals. Then He said to those who were on his right shoulder: Towards paradise and I don’t care. He said to those who were on his left shoulder: Towards Hell and I don’t care.”‘

Robert R. Reilly, THE CLOSING OF THE MUSLIM MIND, 2010, p 80.

Metaphysical justice would not appear to be part of the deal.

Awas v. OK Board of Elections

By

Awad vs. Oklahoma State Board of Elections

Islam is a religion, a political system, and a legal system.  These three Muslim domains are intertwined and inseparable.

Plaintiffs repeatedly argue that Muslims require a Sharia legal system in order to practice their religion.  American law cannot incorporate a Sharia legal system into its jurisprudence since doing so would also incorporate Islamic political and religious tenants into its constitutional common law.  This would plainly violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

Therefore this claim pleads for an unconstitutional remedy on its face and should be denied.

PCuicide

By

In the wake of NPR’s PC-spasm firing of Juan Williams, consider The Travails of Modern Islam by Daniel Pipes:

QUESTION: In relation to the two questions of what went wrong and how do we fix it, do you see a difference between hardcore Islamists and those that are less committed?

DR DANIEL PIPES: They are roughly the same. Various versions of Islamism exist. For example, in Saudi Arabia women can’t drive, can’t do this, can’t do that. In Iran, they can. The Iranian idea is that they’ve created an Islamic republic where women are safe. In the Saudi vision, danger lurks in every corner and females need to be protected. There are many such differences in both style and substance. But in the end, all Islamists aspire to the same thing which is the application of Islamic law. Islamic law differs slightly in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran and India. They have different schools, but these are again details and in general the aspiration to apply Islamic law is common to all Muslims.

The generalizations abhorred by the politically correct need the most scrutiny.

The Closing of the Muslim Mind

By

The Closing Of The Muslim Mind by Robert R. Reilly

Foreword by Roger Scruton

“The roots of Western civilization lie in the religion of Israel, the culture of Greece, and the law of Rome, and the resulting synthesis has flourished and decayed in a thousand ways during the two millennia that have followed the death of Christ. Whether expanding into new territories or retreating into cities, Western civilization has continually experimented with new institutions, new laws, new forms of political order, new scientific beliefs, and new practices in the arts. And this tradition of experiment led, in time, to the Enlightenment, to democracy, and to forms of social order in which free opinion and freedom of religion are guaranteed by the state.

Why did not something similar happen in the Islamic world? [Read more…]

Koran burning

By

International groups and the U.S. Military have unanimously counseled against the upcoming performance of burning the Koran on the grounds that it greatly inflames Muslims and thereby poses an increased safety risk to Americans.  I agree and this is a more than sufficient reason to avoid burning the Koran.

Perhaps this would also be a good time to put to bed this nonsense about Islam being a religion of peace like Christianity.  With the shoe on the other foot, with Bibles on fire in a circle of ululating and shouting Muslims, Christians would quietly stand by and pray for the book burners.  But Muslims aren’t Christian and Islam has a ways to go to grow out of its barbarism.

If burning Korans would help them do that, one could say that increasing the risk to Americans abroad from Muslim violence would have a balancing argument, but there doesn’t appear to be anything constructive to be gained from this act.  It’s as pointless as burning an American flag or an effigy of Uncle Sam, acts which bring great joy to Islamist fanatics, but just look pathetic to the majority of Americans.

Koran burning over here, American flag burning over there, both pitiful acts performed by and for backward people.

“South Park” is hilarious, right?

By

The veiled threats against the Comedy Central show’s creators should be taken very seriously. Islamists seek to replace the rule of law with that of commanding right and forbidding wrong.

By Ayaan Hirsi Ali

‘South Park” is hilarious, right? Not any more.

Last week, Zachary Adam Chesser—a 20-year-old Muslim convert who now goes by the name Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee—posted a warning on the Web site RevolutionMuslim.com following the 200th episode of the show on Comedy Central. The episode, which trotted out many celebrities the show has previously satirized, also “featured” the Prophet Muhammad: He was heard once from within a U-Haul truck and a second time from inside a bear costume.

For this apparent blasphemy, Mr. Amrikee warned that co-creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone “will probably end up” like Theo van Gogh. Van Gogh, readers will remember, was the Dutch filmmaker who was brutally murdered in 2004 on the streets of Amsterdam. He was killed for producing “Submission,” a film that criticized the subordinate role of women in Islam, with me.

There has been some debate about whether Mr. Stone and Mr. Parker should view the Web posting as a direct threat. Here’s Mr. Amrikee’s perspective: “It’s not a threat, but it really is a likely outcome,” he told Foxnews.com. “They’re going to be basically on a list in the back of the minds of a large number of Muslims. It’s just the reality.” He’s also published the home and office addresses of Messrs. Stone and Parker, as well as images of Van Gogh’s body.

According to First Amendment experts, technically speaking this posting does not constitute a threat. And general opinion seems to be that even if this posting was intended as a threat, Mr. Amrikee and his ilk are merely fringe extremists who are disgruntled with U.S. foreign policy; their “outrage” merits little attention.

This raises the question: How much harm can an Islamist fringe group do in a free society? The answer is a lot.

Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim first thought to have been a minor character in radical circles, killed Theo van Gogh. Only during the investigation did it emerge that he was the ringleader of the Hofstad Group, a terrorist organization that was being monitored by the Dutch Secret Service.

The story was very similar in the case of the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. The cartoons, drawn by Kurt Westergaard, were published in September 2005 to little notice but exploded five months later into an international drama complete with riots and flag-burnings. The man behind this campaign of outrage was an Egyptian-born radical imam named Ahmed Abu-Laban.

Prior to this conflagration, Mr. Abu-Laban was seen as a marginal figure. Yet his campaign ended up costing Denmark businesses an estimated $170 million in the spring of 2006. And this doesn’t include the cost of rebuilding destroyed property and protecting the cartoonists.

So how worried should the creators of “South Park” be about the “marginal figures” who now threaten them? Very. In essence, Mr. Amrikee’s posting is an informal fatwa. Here’s how it works:

There is a basic principle in Islamic scripture—unknown to most not-so-observant Muslims and most non-Muslims—called “commanding right and forbidding wrong.” It obligates Muslim males to police behavior seen to be wrong and personally deal out the appropriate punishment as stated in scripture. In its mildest form, devout people give friendly advice to abstain from wrongdoing. Less mild is the practice whereby Afghan men feel empowered to beat women who are not veiled.

By publicizing the supposed sins of Messrs. Stone and Parker, Mr. Amrikee undoubtedly believes he is fulfilling his duty to command right and forbid wrong. His message is not just an opinion. It will appeal to like-minded individuals who, even though they are a minority, are a large and random enough group to carry out the divine punishment. The best illustration of this was demonstrated by the Somali man who broke into Mr. Westergaard’s home in January carrying an axe and a knife.

Any Muslim, male or female, who knows about the “offense” may decide to perform the duty of killing those who insult the prophet. So what can be done to help Mr. Parker and Mr. Stone?

The first step is for them to consult with experts on how to stay safe. Even though living with protection, as I do now in Washington, D.C., curtails some of your freedom, it is better than risking the worst.

Much depends on how far the U.S. government is prepared to contribute to their protection. According to the Danish government, protecting Mr. Westergaard costs the taxpayers $3.9 million, excluding technical operating equipment. That’s a tall order at a time of intense fiscal pressure.

One way of reducing the cost is to organize a solidarity campaign. The entertainment business, especially Hollywood, is one of the wealthiest and most powerful industries in the world. Following the example of Jon Stewart, who used the first segment of his April 22 show to defend “South Park,” producers, actors, writers, musicians and other entertainers could lead such an effort.

Another idea is to do stories of Muhammad where his image is shown as much as possible. These stories do not have to be negative or insulting, they just need to spread the risk. The aim is to confront hypersensitive Muslims with more targets than they can possibly contend with.

Another important advantage of such a campaign is to accustom Muslims to the kind of treatment that the followers of other religions have long been used to. After the “South Park” episode in question there was no threatening response from Buddhists, Christians and Jews—to say nothing of Tom Cruise and Barbra Streisand fans—all of whom had far more reason to be offended than Muslims.

Islamists seek to replace the rule of law with that of commanding right and forbidding wrong. With over a billion and a half people calling Muhammad their moral guide, it is imperative that we examine the consequences of his guidance, starting with the notion that those who depict his image or criticize his teachings should be punished.

In “South Park,” this tyrannical rule is cleverly needled when Tom Cruise asks the question: How come Muhammad is the only celebrity protected from ridicule? Now we know why.

church and state

By

“The Malaysian constitution provides for freedom of religion. The country has a dual-track justice system, in which Islamic courts operate alongside civil ones. Rulings by the Islamic, or sharia, courts are directed toward the country’s Muslim, who make up 60 percent of the population. But they worry non-Muslims who see them as Islamism seeping into the moderate nation’s fabric.

In November, the National Fatwa Council — the country’s top Islamic body — banned Muslims from practicing yoga. It said elements of Hinduism in yoga can corrupt Muslims. The council also bans short hair and boyish behavior for girls, saying they encourage homosexuality. In northern Malaysia’s Kelantan state, authorities have forbidden bright lipstick and high-heeled shoes, saying the bans will safeguard Muslim women’s morals and dignity, as well as thwart rape. And last month, an Islamic court judge in the eastern state of Pahang upheld a verdict to cane a Muslim woman for drinking beer in public.

The country has been mired in inter-faith disputes as well in recent months. In those cases, many non-Muslims complain that the civil courts generally cede control to Islamic courts. Muslims cannot convert to other religions without the permission of the Islamic courts, which rarely approve such requests. In relationships in which a Muslim parent has converted children to Islam over the objection of a non-Muslim parent, the sharia courts usually have upheld the conversions. And earlier this year, a Sikh family lost a court battle to cremate a relative after officials said the man had converted to Islam years before his death, though the family said he hadn’t.”

from:Malaysian Sharia

ROCK THE CASBAH–THE CLASH

Now, the king told the boogie men,
you have to let that raga drop.
The oil down the desert way
has been shaking to the top.
The sheik he drove his cadillac
he went a cruisin down the ville.
The Muezzin was a standing
On the radiator grille.

chorus:

Shareef don’t like it.
Rock the Casbah. Rock the Casbah.
Shareef don’t like it.
Rock the Casbah. Rock the Casbah.

By order of the prophet
We ban that boogie sound.
Degenerate the faithful
With that crazy Casbah sound.
But the Bedouin, they brought out the electric camel drum.
The local guitar picker got his guitar picking thumb.
As soon as the Shareef had cleared the square,
They began to wail.

Chorus

Now over at the temple
Oh, they really pack em in.
The in crowd say it’s cool
To dig this chanting thing.
But as the wind changed direction
and the temple band took five
The crowd got a whiff
Of that crazy casbah jive.

Chorus

The king called up his jet fighters,
He said, you better earn your pay.
Drop your bombs down between the minarets
Down the casbah way.
As soon as the Shareef was chauffered out of there,
The jet pilots tuned to the cockpit radio blare.
As soon as the Shareef was outta their hair
The jet pilots wailed.

 

contrived continuity

By

The psychological state of the militant is distinguished by his fanatical investment in the system.  This central vision reorganizes his entire intellectual and perceptual field, all the way to the periphery.  Language is transformed: it is no longer used to communicate or express, but to conceal a contrived continuity between the system and reality.  Ideological language is charged with the magical role of forcing reality to conform to a particular vision of the world.  It is a liturgical language for which every utterance points to its speaker’s adherence to the system, and it summons the interlocutor to adhere as well.  Code words thus constitute threats and figures of power.It is not possible to remain intelligent under the spell of ideology.

The most obvious sign that ideological insanity is artificial is that it is reversible: when the pressure ceases and circumstances change, one gets out all at once, as if from a dream.  But it is a waking dream–one that does not block motility and maintains a certain apparently rational coherence.  Outside the affected area, which is the superior part of the mind in a healthy person–the part that articulates religion, philosophy, and the “governing ideas of reason,” as Kant would say–the comprehensive functions seem intact but focused on and enslaved by the surreal object.  When one wakes, one’s mind is empty; one’s life and knowledge must be entirely relearned.

Alain Besancon, A Century of Horrors, 2007.

The Republican mistake of the 2008 election was to embrace a portion of the left’s ideological insanity to bring in moderates, which ended up ratcheting the debate to the left.  Whoever concluded that Republicans could score by giving the ball to the opposition should be fired. [Read more…]

free speech

By

April 7, 2009

Pat Condell’s application of the language of religious fundamentalism to defend free speech will certainly offend some.

His strongest critics, however, are those who excuse murder and terrorism as acceptable tactics in their struggle for world domination.

Go Pat.

Pat Condell – Free speech is sacred    mp3 audio – 3 megs.

Muslim strategic goal in America

By

“4- Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America:

The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack.”

An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America (English translation begins on page 15.)

Thomas Jefferson

"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself."

Aristotle

"Only an armed people can be truly free. Only an unarmed people can ever be enslaved."

Karl Popper

“A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is nonscientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.”