Archive for the ‘Religion and Superstition’ Category

Islam: Religion of Pieces

Friday, February 5th, 2010

Trencherbone provides a study guide into how Islam and the Koran works. Dozens of links, organized alphabetically by topic, to other articles extensively quoting the Koran. I’m posting the link because it’s not a quick read; this deserves long, careful study.

This is Islam in its own words, folks, and it’s nasty, violent, toxic filth.

I am a kaffir, an unbeliever, and damn proud of it.

There is no god, particularly not Allah, and Mohammed, may piss be upon him, is no prophet, but a child raping, psychotic, mass murderer.

Thoroughly Modern Mary

Thursday, December 31st, 2009

I cannot imagine Mary’s ecstasy over receiving sufficient quantities of this gift.
christmasnav
Via Fetch My Flying Monkeys.

This is one of those things that makes us vividly aware of just how far we’ve come.

My new cuss phrase is “Christ’s Diapers!”

Flyers = Gunnies

Tuesday, December 29th, 2009

WizardPC, manning the Walls of the City, points out that the new TSA directives promulgated in the wake of the Christmas Bombing, works in exactly the same way as current gun regulations:

  • Unaccountable Government Agency with the power to ruin your life over seemingly minor transgressions? Check!
  • Assumption that you’re up to no good based solely on lawful activity? Check!

…And three more items. As one of Wiz’s commenters notes, this only applies to international travelers, but come on, people, do you really believe that officials like Napolitano don’t want to impose them universally?

After all, many of our current gun control laws got started after the Civil War, and were only supposed to keep uppity black folk from resisting the KKK and other bastions of law and order; they were never intended to be used against decent white Americans.

If the System Worked…

Sunday, December 27th, 2009

If the system worked, as “Nappies” Napolitano claims, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab would not now be in the hands of the Justice Department.

He’d be in military hands, in Guantanomo, and would at this moment be in the process of being persuaded to spill his guts on who supplied him with a defective bomb. He might be allowed to watch with the rest of us as the homes and capitals of those responsible were obliterated. He’d certainly be hearing, and possibly watching, the Current Occupants at Gitmo being shot. Then it would be his turn. They would all have been offered a last meal of pork sausage and beer.

If the system worked, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab would never have attempted what he did, because his sponsors would either be dead, or would know better than to attack an American target.

If the system worked, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab would indeed be in this country, attending engineering school, being a good student, and preparing to go back home to bring his nation into the modern era.

If the system really worked, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab would be going to school in his own country, and that school would be almost as good as almost any place he could have gone to here, and his country would be a substantial economic competitor to the US, like Japan after WWII.

And if the system worked, Barack Hussein Obama would be the junior Senator from Illinois. At best.

A Crisis of Faith

Tuesday, December 22nd, 2009

I recently added Instapunk to my feed reader. Good thing, because it just now pointed me to the ‘Punk’s crisis of faith.

The Punk starts with James Cameron’s Avatar, which I guess I’m going to have to see, because even people who hate it and its message are using it as an anchor for all kinds of useful and interesting discussions, plus it’s supposed to be really pretty.

He pulls in an essay “by the new enfant terrible of the conservative elitist class, Ross Douthat“, which makes the point that

“Avatar” is Cameron’s long apologia for pantheism — a faith that equates God with Nature, and calls humanity into religious communion with the natural world.

and which concludes by “[framing] an existential crisis for anyone who’s paying attention”:

The question is whether Nature actually deserves a religious response. Traditional theism has to wrestle with the problem of evil: if God is good, why does he allow suffering and death? But Nature is suffering and death. Its harmonies require violence. Its “circle of life” is really a cycle of mortality. And the human societies that hew closest to the natural order aren’t the shining Edens of James Cameron’s fond imaginings. They’re places where existence tends to be nasty, brutish and short.

Religion exists, in part, precisely because humans aren’t at home amid these cruel rhythms. We stand half inside the natural world and half outside it. We’re beasts with self-consciousness, predators with ethics, mortal creatures who yearn for immortality.

This is an agonized position, and if there’s no escape upward — or no God to take on flesh and come among us, as the Christmas story has it — a deeply tragic one.

Pantheism offers a different sort of solution: a downward exit, an abandonment of our tragic self-consciousness, a re-merger with the natural world our ancestors half-escaped millennia ago.

But except as dust and ashes, Nature cannot take us back.

Now, I am not a Christian. I am a militant skeptic. A friend of mine was shocked recently to learn that although my father is a priest, I haven’t even been baptized. (Why not? When I was born, my father was in a church that did not believe in infant baptism, and by the time I was old enough, I didn’t want to be. Why not? Flippant version: “Because I don’t believe in an invisible superhero from outer space who cares, intimately and personally, about my sex life.” Serious version: Because I’d have to stand up and take the Nicene Creed in public, and the Nicene Creed neatly summarizes all the magical crap I explicitly believe is not true. “We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.” Really? How the hell can you take that seriously?)

And given that, I’m missing about half of his crisis; I had it and dealt with it when I was in kindergarten, and no one, not even my father (who is a learned man, if not quite a scholar, and a pretty right guy) could answer my kindergarten questions about who made God, and what happens, really, when we die, and most of all, how do you know all that for sure?

Instead, I find myself approaching his crisis from the opposite side: I want to be baptized, I want to join in the Church, I want to take Communion from my father’s hand before he dies and make Confession and all the rest, and I can’t, because I’d have to lie to do it.

I’m looking for something to believe in, something to anchor me, and all I have at this point is scepticism, an unquenchable need to ask the next question and do my best to refute the answer.

I’m begging the Christians around me to come up with something better than the Nicene Fourth Century Crackpot Superstition that I can swear to as I am baptized and take Communion. Please. I’m dying here.

Gregory Bateson has some of the pieces, a vague outline of The Sacred, and a couple of handles: “The Pattern That Connects” and “A Necessary Unity”. He understood things in terms of feedback loops, and was most interested in systems controlled by feedback, particularly informational feedback, as opposed to those controlled by mere physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics. He talked about evolution and the mind, how both are driven by feedback, and how evolution gives rise to mindfulness, both in the large scale of biology and the small scale of the workings of your own brain. (I’m crudely summarizing some fairly subtle ideas; expounding on Bateson is far beyond the scope of my rambling here.)

The Anchoress is a regular read of mine, precisely because she’s the exemplar of people I know seeking the Numinous, and doing their best to live their lives accordingly. She, too, subscribes to a pack of nonsense, but somehow sees through it to the truth it shrouds about how we should live our lives with love and grace. Her view even makes sense of transubstantiation.

And today, Instapunk in his agony shines light on another small but crucial facet:

What is with this idiotic notion that Nature is good and Mankind is bad? Fact is, Nature is cruel, even demonstrably vicious, and Mankind is, uh, more kind than not. That’s why Mankind has prospered and proliferated. DUH. Consider this: Christianity is the biggest ever departure from Nature. Its central premise is that we all matter. Odd. Wrong? Perhaps. But absolutely right in human terms. It has led to the extension of human thought, lifespans, and a kind of beauty and accomplishment no other culture has ever dreamed of. No other kind of human philosophy has produced such sheer gorgeousness. Now we are being asked to regard ourselves as vile, a scientifically verifiable pollution on the face of the earth, something akin to the AIDS virus. The President of the United States subscribes to this view. Let me repeat that. The President of the United States subscribes to this view.

While I am struggling on matters of faith, patriotism, and survival. My response? Fuck him and the horse he rode in on. The Split does matter. Not just because I’m going to die, but because we all know we’re going to die and we all still care about what happens after Human religion is by definition the Split with Nature, the proof that we are better than lions, hyenas, wolves, and black mambas. Most of us live every day with the proof — the species that remade themselves just for the privilege of living with us and acquired a moral sense along the way — dogs.

[Bold mine.]

There. “We all matter.” Not that we’re all equally qualified. Not that we’re all entitled to equal outcomes. Not that we’re all just as good, or just as bad, as everyone else. But in some sense, we all matter, for good or ill, even in the face of the awful scale of Time, The Universe, and Everything, even God Itself, whatever It is. And we should all strive, as hard as we can, to lift each other up and away from Nature’s savage muck, away from superstition, and towards the numinous, the sacred.

Even though we create it, not the other way around.

Heinlein said it, and he didn’t mean it as compliment or blessing: “Thou Art God”.


Late thought:

[Christianity] has led to the extension of human thought, lifespans, and a kind of beauty and accomplishment no other culture has ever dreamed of.

What, exactly, in the scriptures, led to this?

I’m reminded of how our slave-owning founders, such as Jefferson, managed to produce the greatest framework for liberty ever devised.

“Science Is Dead”

Thursday, December 10th, 2009

Something I’ve been thinking for awhile now, but haven’t had the time to write down.

Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

I first became aware of this phenomenon in relation to gun control (which has almost no support beyond wishful thinking), but of course it also applies to socialism and global warming, that last being the author’s main example.

EP references Michael Crichton’s excellent analysis here.

(There’s a video clip of Crichton explaining why global warming is a religion floating around; if I can find it I’ll post it.)


EP’s post is primarily about the widespread failure to understand how science works, not global warming, but I do want to make a quick comment on the motley CRU data leak:

The emails, data files, and code that were released (likely by an internal source, not an outside hacker) were not, in my opinion, released to be the definitive, dispositive answer to the AGW debate.

They were a merely crowbar, intended to open up the can of very nasty worms that the AGW establishment is apparently riddled with, to force the full release of the data sets, emails, and code that are being used to hijack the world economy.

(A common defense against releasing all the data has been, “It’s proprietary; we’re contractually forbidden to release it.” Fine, but if you’re going to pass a bunch of laws that leave me shivering in the dark while you eat caviar in your private jet, you’d damn well better be willing to put it all out in the open. Don’t tell me I just need to trust you.)

The leaker is one of the great heroes of science, although they may have acted too late. I’m looking forward to finding out who they are.


I found this article on the Hacker’s News site, along with a link to the Wired article on The Psychology of Climate Change Denial, which, rather than argue cogently against very appropriate skepticism, simply labels skeptics as crazies, so they can be safely ignored.

Or, as Andrew Klavan says, Wired explains, “Shut up.”

[update: bad html hid parts of this post. Fixed, I think. Wordpress needs to put in some kind of horizontal rule thingie, so I don't have to do it by hand. Yes, I understand their objection. I don't care. ]

Explain Islam To Us

Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009

Thomas Friedman, writing in the New York Times:

Whenever something like Fort Hood happens you say, ‘This is not Islam.’ I believe that. But you keep telling us what Islam isn’t. You need to tell us what it is and show us how its positive interpretations are being promoted in your schools and mosques. If this is not Islam, then why is it that a million Muslims will pour into the streets to protest Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, but not one will take to the streets to protest Muslim suicide bombers who blow up other Muslims, real people, created in the image of God? You need to explain that to us — and to yourselves.

[Bold mine.]

This is the closer on an excellent essay about the Fort Hood killer, Major Hasan, and “The Narrative” that inspired his act of religious war. Read the whole thing.

“Why I Did It”, By Hasan

Monday, November 16th, 2009

[I have only briefly glanced at this material as yet; this post is basically a sticky note to myself for future reference.]

The Washington Post puts up the presentation slides for a talk on issues facing Muslims in the U.S. military that Major Nidal Hasan gave to his fellow doctors.

Barry Rubin does a point by point analysis.

How do we know that the attack at Fort Hood was an act of Islamist terrorism? Simple, Major Nidal Hassan told us so. You’ve seen reports of a long list of things he did and said along these lines. But what’s most amazing of all is this:

Hassan is the first terrorist in history to give an academic lecture explaining why he was about to attack. Yet that still isn’t enough for too many people—including the president of the United States–to understand that the murderous assault at Fort Hood was a Jihad attack.

It was reported that the audience was shocked and frightened by his lecture. He was supposed to speak on some medical topic yet instead talked on the topic: “The Koranic World View as it Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military.” All you have to do is look at the 50 Power Point slides and they tell you everything you need to know.

It is quite a good talk. He’s logical and presents his evidence. This is clearly not the work of a mad man or a fool, though there’s still a note of ambiguity in it. He’s still working out what to do in his own mind and is trying to figure out if he has a way out other than in effect deserting the U.S. army and becoming a Jihad warrior. Ultimately, he concluded that he could not be a proper Muslim without killing American soldiers. Obviously, other Muslims could reach different conclusions but Hassan strongly grounds himself in Islamic texts.

In a sense, Hassan’s lecture was a cry for help: Can anyone show me another way out? Can anyone refute my interpretation of Islam? One Muslim in the audience reportedly tried to do so. But unless these issues are openly discussed and debated–rather than swept under the rug–more people will die.

In fact, I’d recommend that teachers use this lecture in teaching classes on both Islam and Islamist politics.

Follow along with me and you’ll understand everything.

So follow along, already. At first glance, his analysis seems thorough. Pro-jihadists, please feel free to respond in similar detail.

Purple Hearts For Fort Hood Fallen

Sunday, November 15th, 2009

Roger Kimball makes the case.

Will the soldiers whom Hasan killed or injured in this latest terrorist assault receive the Purple Heart?

In my view, they should. But whether they do depends on how the Obama administration decides to spin the episode. If it determines that the soldiers were victims of criminal assault, the answer is No: they do not get this most somber military decoration.

But if the Obama administration determines that those soldiers were injured or killed in the line of duty, then they are eligible for the Purple Heart. [UPDATE: the always excellent Diana West beat me to the punch with this insightful column about Ft. Hood and the Purple Heart.]

It’s tricky for Obama. His administration is devoted to transforming the jihadist war against the West into a civilian conflict. Hence the heavy odor of political correctness that has hung about Ft. Hood since November 5 when Maj. Hasan shouted “Allahu Akbar” and opened fire.

Kimball points to Diana West’s brief, but cogent, post. She says, “Witholding medals to these war dead and wounded is the ultimate act of submission”. It’s an act of submission, alright, but far from the ultimate one.

Worse than the President bowing to foreign potentates, to be sure, but there’s a long hard fall even beyond this, with plenty of bumps and breaks on the way down.Terrible precedent.

“$200 Haircuts on 88-cent Heads”

Thursday, November 12th, 2009

Mark Shea, one of many outside the mainstream pointing at the blatantly obvious truth the mainstream insists on not seeing:

One thing you can give our media Chattering Classes: They are utterly consistent. After Major Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire on a roomful of defenseless people in Fort Hood, it was absolutely assured that we would immediately be told that this outrage had nothing to do with his Islamic faith and that it was not an act of terror. Then, as time went on and the bleedin’ obvious became bleedin’ obvious, we would spend all weekend enduring TV pundits scratching the $200 haircuts on their 88-cent heads and pondering the question of whether there might be some remote connection between Islamic belief and a guy who praises Muslim suicide bombers as heroes and martyrs, sits under the teaching of a Radical Islamic imam who praises his act of slaughter as heroic, uses his authority as a psychiatrist to proselytize vulnerable patients with Islamic agitprop, and dresses in traditional Muslim garb and shouts “Allahu akbar!” as he guns down his prey.

It was a spectacular display of deliberate willed stupidity by a media culture that demonstrates repeatedly it does not want to acknowledge that Islam tends to breed such acts of terror with startling frequency. And it was predictable because it happens every time some Islamic butcher opens up on innocent victims in the name of the Prophet.

Well worth your time to read the whole thing.


Shea points at something in particular I’ve been trying to find; more evidence of Hollywood’s cravenness, in particular:

For 2012, Emmerich set his sites on destroying the some biggest landmarks around the world, from Rome to Rio. But there’s one place that Emmerich wanted to demolish but didn’t: the Kaaba, the cube-shaped structure located in the center of Mecca. It’s the focus of prayers and the site of the Hajj, the biggest, most important pilgrimage in Islam.

“Well, I wanted to do that, I have to admit,” the filmmaker told scifiwire.com. “But my co-writer Harald [Kloser] said, ‘I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie.’ And he was right.”

Emmerich went on: “We have to all, in the western world, think about this. You can actually let Christian symbols fall apart, but if you would do this with [an] Arab symbol, you would have … a fatwa, and that sounds a little bit like what the state of this world is. So it’s just something which I kind of didn’t [think] was [an] important element, anyway, in the film, so I kind of left it out.”

Traditionally, a fatwa has meant religious opinion by an Islamic scholar or imam. The term has gained currency in the West after Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini issued a death sentence in the form of a fatwa against British author Salman Rushdie for alleged blasphemies in his book “The Satanic Verses” in 1989. As a result, the Indian-born writer was forced into hiding for most of the ’90s.

But noooo, we’re told to believe. “Jihad” just means “a peaceful inner struggle with one’s self”. We’re told, “religion of peace”. We’re told, “selective quotation of scriptures.”

NO. As I always say at this point:

There is no god, not even Allah, and Mohammed, may piss be upon him, was nobody’s prophet, but a child-molesting mass murderer.

And I say that simply because, so far, I can, but I’m beginning to fear the day is coming when I dare not say such things in public.

And when that day comes, you watch: I won’t be able to say that, but anyone will be able to piss on a statue of Christ, or daub the Virgin Mary with shit, and will get public funds to do it.