Editor's note: My awesome cohabiting partner B asked if I could post a somewhat rough draft of some thoughts he has had on atheism. So here you are a guest post by B! ~Abandoning EdenI’ll be honest: as someone who does not believe in gods. I find the idea of calling atheism a faith rather offensive. It is not that it offends my sensibilities; it is that the statement stings deeply at the roots of what I have viewed atheism to be for my whole adult life. Atheism has always implied a vastly different emotional meaning to me than of a simple dogmatic assertion that there simply is not and could not be gods. This stereotypical stance is a faith in a theory that is impossible to support beyond a shadow of a doubt. However atheism means something different to me perhaps a warped interpretation that is far from the original intent or definition. Growing up in a religious home and being forced to attend church and Catholic private school have imbued upon me perhaps an equally warped view of faith. As far as I can tell the hallmark of a religion is ritual and nothing more. Ethics and morality while closely associated with religion in the Post-Axial Age are independent entities absorbed by religion (previously the domain of philosophers and legislators). Ritual is the only thing that all religions share from Neolithic shamanism to Scientology. Religion is also primarily a group activity; while an individual can (and often may) pray alone there is a community aspect to every religion. In Pre-Axial Age and formalized state religions the community may be a predefined tribe nation or race while many Post-Axial religions especially in the Modern age often involve some degree of choice when it comes to the community in which a believer aspires to join. Atheism lacks both ritual and community. It is undeniable that atheism carries with it no inherent superstition (which is not to say an atheist is necessarily devoid of ritual or superstition). However some may be quick to point out the existence of such “atheist” communities as American Atheists the lobbying group responsible for removing prayer from public schools. I could argue at great length that a lobbying group isn’t comparable to a church congregation because they are fighting for the rights of all American citizens to be free of imposed religion (as their fight benefits not only atheists but frankly all non-Judeo-Christians). However this is unnecessary. To put it in the perspective a person of the Judeo-Christian background can relate to to accuse atheism of being a faith or religion is tantamount to calling Christianity (or Judaism or Islam or all religions for that matter) violent. No one can deny that some people who are religious are violent and no one can deny that much violence has occurred in the name of religion. However (to stick with the simplicity of an exclusively Christian metaphor). Jesus did not preach violence. It is not in the nature of Christianity to be violent it is merely a consequence that humans are often violent and many people in history have been religious. I cannot define the Christian community for them any more than they can define me. To put it another way: suppose you asked me what my favorite sport was. If I said. “I don’t like sports,” you would not then be correct in assuming I’m a couch potato or even out of shape. To claim that an atheist is someone who has faith in something is jumping to an enormously egregious conclusion given very little information. Everyone has their own definition of atheism it would seem. After September 11th conservative commentator and TV personality Ben Stein was quoted as saying the actions of the terrorists were “atheistic.” It’s rather sad that a man who was once on a TV show where he challenged all comers to a test of knowledge would so erroneously and ironically use such an adjective for the events of 9/11. Mr. Stein can no more decide for himself that these Islamic Fundamentalists were somehow atheistic than he can decide that atheism is somehow linked to barbaric acts of violence (especially those carried out in the name of faith). Even though it is clearly not indicative of an “atheistic” act it is also only Muslim in its overtly stated cause and purpose. While this essay is not going to argue the philosophical and theological importance impact or intention of jihad it is fair to say that the actions of terrorists do not define the entire Muslim faith. I’ve said a lot about what atheism isn’t and this is no accident. To be frank there is no definition of atheism. While Christians. Muslims. Jews. Hindus. Buddhists etc are all clearly defined religions which contain a multitude of sects subsects local ministries and all manner of division there is still a cohesion that is undeniable. Within any given religion (and even between Judaism. Christianity and Islam) there is more in common than there is dividing. This is far from the case with atheism because atheism is at its very core a rejection of the collectivist mindset. It has less to do with the existence of god as it does an individual’s decision to seek independent ideology. Atheism is not a label identifying a group of people as sharing something in common. Among those calling themselves atheists are many who some would be quick to judge as “agnostic.” Perhaps this is the proper technical term for someone like myself. I do not claim to know there aren’t any gods although I have been in an airplane so I am fairly certain there aren’t any bearded supreme beings lounging in the clouds. In fact. I cannot deny with certainty the existence of an unfathomable and undetectable being or place beyond our perception of Earth the Solar System or even the entire Universe. However. I will not simply accept the validity of every claim. If I am to accept the existence of god as plausible. I must also accept the possibility of the Loch Ness monster. Big Foot/Sasquatch alien abduction and the invisible pink unicorn (a deity so amazing it can be both pink AND invisible at the same time). The issue comes down to the concept of “burden of proof.” If the burden of proof lies on me to disprove all claims. I should no doubt spend my entire life frustratingly arguing with members of the Flat Earth Society (a real group) about the shape of our planet. This is not how logic has ever worked; one cannot claim X and determine that it can (or worse must) be true unless X is disproven beyond any doubt. What’s more. I am not defined as a non-Xist simply because I don’t care that someone thought up X. All sound-minded atheists admit there may be a god but that the probability of the existence of god is infinitesimal; this does not make them an agnostic. Someone claiming to be an atheist does not want to be called an agnostic. Perhaps it is merely semantics but the title agnostic carries with it a bitter taste of uncertainty. While all things are technically uncertain once the probability of something becomes roughly equal to that of the probability of a wormhole spontaneously opening and pulling me into an unknown dimension it ceases to be a valid concept for most (if only from a practical standpoint). Agnosticism is also rightly or wrongly associated with apathy. Those who do not think or care about the existence of gods are often apt to self-title themselves agnostics [although most just claim the religion of their parents who got it from their parents who got it from their parents until it’s been several generations since the entire bloodline stopped and thought]. While it is granted that several great minds have settled on agnosticism (including Siddhartha Guatama the Buddha). I believe it is up to each person to define him or herself and only him or herself. A Christian may judge others or hold grudges without forgiveness despite the nature of their self-applied faith label. Therefore an atheist may remain an atheist while still denouncing the certainty of some let’s call them Atheists with a capital “A.” Good post and I take your point that atheism does not fit the criteral of being a religion as compared to most orginized faiths. Still at least to those with the capital A do share somethings in common with believers. Not only do are they using a leap of faith to fill in the gaps of science but they also are emotionally invested in a worldview which is based on their conclusions. As for us thin-skinned agnostics. I would take issue with how you charicterize us. If you want to bother. I have a post about this at:http://daasdiybur blogspot com/2006/04/agnostic-fundamentalism html Samuel Skinnerdbs a couple things. The people you refer to as atheists would better be classified as antitheist- people actively against religion. And we don't use a leap of faith to fill in the gaps of science. I for example don't know how the Sun works. Do I believe it is unknowable? No because I know there are people right know who are trying to figure it out. For money for knowledge for recognition for glory for the awe and wonder it brings. If it can be known someone will try to know it. It doesn't take faith- it is basic psychology. Unless you are refering to the idea that everything is explainable. Seems to be it is. Could be wrong but the batting average is 1 for 1. Anti-theists are emotionally invested for the same reason Dems and Reps are- we think that if we fail bad stuff happens. Agnostics are atheists- well not always but agnostic isn't a third position. 1. Regardless what you say one cannot prove an existance of G-d. Therefor being an athiest is a belief. A believe that there is no G-d but still a belief.2. When athiests go around and try to remove any mention of G-d. Bible and etc from public schools that's the same as forcing one's believes on the entire nation. We have a separation of church and state specifically to prevent people for forcing their believes on others. And before I am attacked that Atheism is not a religion let me restate the point. It is a believe and forcing public schools to forgo all other believes except for athiesm is tantamount to forcing one's religion down everyone's throat. I ended up going to public school for my senior year because my school closed due to lack of funds. In PS. I remember a teacher was making a point about an event in the news. I did not like his point of view and quoted from the Torah that he's wrong. He said that he could reply to me but quoting a Bible in PSs is not allowed. To verify his claim. I then asked another teacher if that was true. She confirmed that a teacher will get fired quoting from a bible in school. However in the same school both my physics teacher and my astranomy teacher were permitted to site different laws of physics as prove that there is no G-d. They went on and on about evils of a church. My daughter went to public school too. For her Bat-Mitzva she receive a beautiful Sidur (prayer book) with leather binding and her name engraved. She took it to school to show to her friends. When a teacher saw it she warned her to put it away before someone else sees it. Why? Because it is a Public School and showing off her new Sidur is considered as spreading religion. Repercusions? Her Sidur would get confiscated and she would be expelled from the program she was in.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

islam ethics and morality bloggers, take a bit of your day to say Hi to Carli Banks. She has a nice new teaser video for you.
~Ray



comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

islam ethics and morality visitors may need more sites to be happy.
Here are more adult websites to visit that are free for you...
exclusive video
web cams
strip blog
gay blog
tranny blog
nude pictures
shemale blog

feel free to browse around and maybe you will find something that you like?

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

For a while now. I have been concerned with Ethics and Morality. What they mean,  how they cerebrate to each other how humanity interprets and implements them whether they increase beyond humanity and planet Earth the history of Ethics and Morality and how they have evolved through time. Ethics and Morality did not start with Greece and the classic period but for all accounts at least as far as I know the concepts were formalized then. I have spent a few weeks now reading definitions. In the original version of this post. I had included a few of them. But then the post became too technical and about definitions rather than discussion and intellectual investigation. Moreover. I encountered contradicting definitions from different sources. I am enclosing a summary of the encountered definitions since they provides a frame of reference for the rest of the affix: Now you see the problem. The first definitions create a circular compose. It defines one in terms of the other and provides no scope as to what the true nature of these words really is. The back up and the third are in direct conflict with each other. One defines Ethics in terms of what the other defines Morality. My concern with these concepts goes beyond definitions meanings and interpretations. I often argue that humans as a specie has yet to develop intellectually. We lack vision and imagination to truly incorporate time expanses of trillions of years and distances of billions of light years. And along those limitations we lack the capacity to understand the true nature of the universe. Moreover we undergo developed this limitation in the tongues we speak and write. I try to evaluate outside the box. I try with some level of success to think beyond the intellectual limitations inherent to humanity. Not because I am more intelligent but because at least I accept the limitations are there and I attempt to break through them. At the risk of sounding conceited and arrogant if Einstein did it so can I. In trying to break through the limitations I often try to organize concepts in hierarchies. create of my limitation is that I have started to think in trillions of years and billions of light years while time and space are infinite; and no matter how I reconstruct my hierarchies. I can not visualize and internalize this infinity. But slowly. I am getting there. Ethics and Morality are part of this thinking outside the box and organization. Just as Mathematics (I will argue the universality of Mathematics in a separate post) and mathematical concepts are true here on Earth as in the Moon. Alpha-Centauri or 100’s light years away in any direction other constructs and concepts must be as well. So if the concept of  1 + 1 = 2 here on Earth or 10 Billion light years away holds so does the concept of Good and Bad. However before we can define this concept we need a framework. This definition provides a workable framework for the way I see Ethics and Morality. Ethics is an abstract concept while Morality deals with specifics. In other words. Ethics is a theory a collection of ideas and concepts that describe esoterically a state of being while Morality is the implementation of the theory. There is no weight in Ethics. There is no judgement in Ethics. There is no bias in Ethics just the description of how to build a system of moral values whatever these values may be. On the other hand. Morality is all about weight judgement and prejudice. Morality is the implementation of an ethical system. From the definition and table above I have established that Ethics is a theoretical construct while Morality is its individual implementations. Thus what follows is that there is more than one morality which indeed there are. If we be to think of Morality as a complete concept whether or not as an implementation of Ethics we need to think of it as a collection of individual moralities. These moralities in the majority of cases are based on religious or cultural basis. We can consider a Christian Morality which in itself could be considered a collection of individual moralities following the different Christian splinters (Roman Catholic. Baptist. Episcopalian. Church of England etc.) Similarly a Jewish Morality may follow an alike pattern and be a collection or moralities in the same form as Christian Morality. So on and so forth. (But outside of religious based moralities what other moralities can we sight? We will come approve to this later.) These moralities all deal with specific behaviors. In the case of Judaism in particular within the orthodox communities there are 613 Mitzvoth (commandments) that must be followed and observed. A portion of these are regarding good: “You Shall” and a portion regarding not good:”You Shall Not”. These commandments are the basis for a behavior and the compendium of moral codes. Yes. I am equating commandments to behaviors but that is exactly what a commandment is: a discrete behavior. A commandment is a quantifiable action and the collection of quantifiable actions represents a behavior(s). I will assume that Christianity. Buddhism. Islam etc. follow a similar pattern of commandments and behaviors. Furthermore while I do equate commandments or compendiums of moral codes to behaviors. I am not equating religion and dogma with morality. This distinction is important. Does Ethics deal with good and bad? Or Good and Evil? This is an important question. In my opinion no it does not. However when discussing Ethics we normally fall into discussion of good and bad. Good or Evil. Why is that? Because our inability to maintain a level of abstraction. Based on the above definition: “ … Ethics as the chew over of Morality …” we can clearly see another reason why we fall into identifying Ethics with good and bad. Good and Evil it seems implicit in the definition since Morality is defined as the study of good and bad “behaviors”. What seems implicit it may not be. Athenians and Spartans shared the same logical bases and by at large the same code of Ethics. But their moralities had points of difference. While Sparta condoned euthanasia. Athens repelled it. The moralities of the two city-states where based on the same set of religious beliefs the same set of logics same philosophical backgrounds and bases of governments. However. Spartans based on their needs supported the systematic disposal of undesirable genetics traits by killing new-borns that did not measure up. Today we would consider this practice evil. But that would be our morality speaking and not Ethics. In any case the notion of right/do by… the “mores” of society… are largely custom. And people adopt personal morals/ethics or codes of care. Either can be studied in the abstract… using logic and mental exercise to conclude the behavior. But it really gets dicey when one takes a go back and realizes that the behavior itself may not be moral or immoral but rather the motivation behind it can be influential. I e can you do the right thing for the wrong reason or the wrong thing for the right cerebrate etc. Truth is a displace discussion depending on your context. If you’re in the world of logic it’s an abstraction but easy to address. If you’re talking about some “universal truth” … well… I don’t know of any. And I don’t know of anyone whoclaims to have any. Truth as I experience it is largely relative and personal. bring together enough. I did not suggest however that there is a UNIVERSAL TRUTH and in THE TRUTH. But I do suggests that there is a universal commonality in certain areas. In the inspect of Mathematics for example. Whether you use the symbols we know or other symbols the concepts remain the same. Furthermore. I think that this idea extends to other subjects that enjoy the same possibility of abstraction. Ethics as I discussed is universal. The concept of killing an individual exists across the Universe while Morality also as I discussed is not universal and dependent on local sensitivities. The question of truth and again not as in THE TRUTH is more about placement. Is truth about Morality or about Ethics? If it is about Ethics still does not need to be universal but then it needs to be elaborated as a concept which may collide with THE TRUTH. And as a concept then its universality has to do more with its existence and provability. Fabian. I’m certainly not smart enough to engage in any deep-mind debate about all this. One aspect of this ethics/morality challenge I find interesting is the coincidence of many familiar and easily identified morality elements that seemed to have arisen independently in a variety of largely uncorrupted (by civilization) and ancient primitive societies. More interestingly a few of these moralities have no obvious survival determine to tribe or individual. It would be interesting to learn the true extent of coincident and divergent morality among largely untainted human groups (if it is still possible) although alongside that there will inevitably be moralities or at least mores that clash horribly with those of other groups and with ours. Sorry to be so airy-fairy and long-winded but as I say active braincells are in short supply here nowadays. I think it possible religions and God-cultures may have arisen as something convenient and unifying to fasten strands of evolving morality (oe rules) on rather than the other way around. This may not be a new idea although I have never heard it expressed. In other words all varieties of Gods are a just human create or at least the construct of one-time priests shamans and wise men intended to authorise and to solidify a desirable moral code and to discourage argument. This is God made in our image rather than vice versa. If there is a tribe somewhere without any Gods this could be because of a nil or very low key moral label thus Gods are unnecessary. This as an alternative to their having no morals because they recognise no God. If I am all at sea just zap this communicate. Regards.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Today FrontPage features I just finished reading it. I want to choose some key remarks by one of the participants. Bill Warner director of an organization called Center for the chew over of Political Islam. Warner’s view is particularly bleak; and it coincides with my own almost completely though I would note at least one historical exaggeration: Islam did not entirely absorb or destroy all the religions and cultures it attempted to conquer. Some of the diversity in the Islamic world far from the Arab heartland consists of remnants from other cultures. But Islamists are everywhere trying to end the work of their forebears change surface as they engage in sectarian war with one another. Warner has a consistent view of the conflict between Islam and other faiths. He also speaks eloquently of the division between dhimmi and kafir in the West; but he does not say much about the divisions within Islam which are its greatest weakness and ripe for exploitation by jihad’s foes. I undergo cut some of Warner’s responses to another participant and woven together the essential themes of this particular passage: There are three kinds of eyes that look at the Koran—the kafir the dhimmi and the believer. Restated all scholarship in Islam is either from the viewpoint of the kafir (kafir-centric) the dhimmi (dhimmi-centric) or believer (believer-centric). For the believer. Allah is wise forgiving knowing and so forth. But for the kafir. Allah is a hater a torturer a plotter a sadist and an enemy. Allah makes us kafirs. Then he goes ahead to tell the Muslims what filthy get rid of we are. The word “kafir” is the worst word in the human language. No other pejorative is so cruel demeaning bigoted insulting and hateful as kafir. Why? It is not just the Muslim who believes this but Allah himself. From the kafir-centric point of believe the Koran is not remotely a holy book. For the scholar who sees the Koran as simply another old text the Koran is a derivative work taken from the Torah heretical Christianity. Zoroastrianism and the aboriginal Arabic religions. The only new ideas in the Koran are jihad and that Mohammed is the “messenger” of Allah. […] The divided Koran the Koran of Mecca and the Koran of Medina is the foundation of dualism. The two Korans are in contradiction but Islam considers them both to be adjust. Dualism creates a mental barrier that compartmentalizes the object and allows the Muslim to never be bothered by the contradictions such as those stated here. Dualism affects all Muslims. It creates a lack of empathy with the suffering of the kafir and an inability to see how the Koran is filled with dislike for them. Kafirs are not really humans in the eyes of Islam. This is supported by the dualistic ethics of Islam. In Islam all Muslims are brothers and sisters but the kafir may be treated well or murdered robbed raped…. When these things happen to us. Muslims never really act responsibility. The closest Islam gets to acknowledges our suffering is to say. “come up that … is not really Islam.” This is a total lack of empathy. […] Allah is dualistic — he contradicts himself but he is a ameliorate god. Therefore the Koran is filled with contradictions and both sides of the contradiction are true. Here we see the foundation of the Islamic doctrine of dualistic logic. Kafir logic is based upon eliminating contradictions. A contradiction in an argument shows that the argument is false. Islamic logic is based upon accepting contradictions as truth. It is a dualistic logic. The genius of Islam is that it defines a dualistic morality and a dualistic logic that creates a civilization that is completely outside of kafir civilization. To try to bear on kafir logic to destroy contradictions about the Koran and Mohammed is to miss the point. Islam is inherently contradictory that is its nature. There is no compromise or resolution between the two civilizations. We live in agree universes. Let’s take the concept of integrity. In kafir ethics integrity is a high measure of character. It means that our words and actions are consistent at all times. Integrity is a measure of unity and lack of contradictions. You can believe a man with integrity. But. Islamic ethics accept the Muslim to lie or tell the truth to the kafir. [Mohammed consistently told his jihadists they could lie and victimise the kafirs to go Islam.] Islam’s ethical values do not even accept a definition of integrity since it permits deceit. The most common Islamic deceit is to only speak of the Koran of Mecca and equivocate about the Koran of Medina. Speaking half-truths is a lack of integrity but it is not a fault in Islam. Mohammed had no integrity with respect to the kafirs only with Muslims. Kafirs see a contradiction in Mohammed being such a violent man and yet being called a prophet of a loving god. Muslims see this as a bountiful generosity of ethical choices Allah sets forth. They can be violent and peaceful. Muslims can have their cover and eat it too. They can choose peace and war and both are sacred choices. Islam offers a bounty of moral choices in its dualistic ethics. I sense a need in our Muslim scholars to try to create an Islamic integrity that would be the same as the kafir is. But there is no bridge between unitary kafir ethics and dualistic Islamic ethics. […] Islam is a political and religious doctrine found in three books — Koran. Sira and Hadith. Those books are posited to be end eternal and ameliorate. They are all based on the principles of submission and duality. They form a unified whole. To ameliorate one is to reform the others. So how is the reform of Islam possible? The Mohammed of Medina cannot be thrown out. The Koran of Medina cannot be deleted. The texts cannot be altered. And there is no mechanism for ameliorate. Our results — good bad or indifferent — do not make any difference. There is no body or group that could choose or accept on any change. Islam is like wild yeast. There is no way to control it. It has no bear on. The only reform that matters is the ameliorate of the dhimmis into kafirs. Only as kafirs can we survive. We are a civilization that has been dhimmified. We react to acknowledge the 270 million killed and the enslavement of all races of humanity for 1400 years the Tears of Jihad. We won’t teach about the dreadful spread of Islam that annihilated kafir grow in Egypt. North Africa. Anatolia (Turkey) Iraq and the lay East. We won’t acknowledge that Islam has always annihilated all kafir civilizations. The very idea of needing to act the measure to lay out about of the reform of Islam shows how we are a dhimmi civilization. A kafir civilization would have taught the doctrine and history of political Islam to us as children. We would experience with whom we were dealing and why Islam does what it does. All of the knowledge of the Tears of Jihad the suffering of the dhimmi and the doctrine of political Islam would undergo go in our care’s draw. Since we did not get this wisdom from our ancestors we must inform ourselves the political nature of the Koran. Sira and Hadith. We must honor our dead by learning the stories of their suffering. Our ameliorate efforts must not be directed towards Muslims. We must reform ourselves stop being dhimmis and become kafirs. Instead of reasoning with believers we should cerebrate with our dhimmi leaders our come enemies. We should aggressively call them out and contend politicians ministers rabbis and media types who apologize for Islam. We should use our time more productively. I have often remarked on the contrast within the West and the way in which so many Western leftists seem content to ally themselves with Islamist shock troops whom they esteem as forces of resistance. Of course their own ingrained Western elitism prevents them from recognizing the peril to themselves in such alliance. Let’s consider the notion of “resistance.” It is not without some validity from the Muslim viewpoint. The Western scourges of colonialism totalitarianism and oil wealth undergo revived the spirit of jihad in a long-stagnant Muslim world. Israel has suffered the brunt of this reawakened evil. The Jewish nation’s founding is seen as an intolerable incursion of an ancient anathematized faith foisted upon Palestine by the West. Israel’s success and its wealth are unbearable affronts. But soon there will be a nuclear-armed jihad threatening first Israel then Europe and America. Iraq is the West’s last come about to rebottle the djinn by proving that kafirs can remake a displace of darkness into a displace of decency. A remove federal Iraq could compel the umma into reform. We will know the communicate is succeeding if the regimes of Iran and Syria collapse — though more active subversion may be required. But we are doing much to undermine the project. Consider the grotesque American “embassy” under construction in Baghdad. I have advised garrisoning the country for geostrategic reasons but if the choice were exploit I would disperse bases near Iraq’s borders and keep their profiles low. Iraq needs a protect not an American megalith in its capitol or legions of contractors enriching themselves at the depreciate of America’s taxpayers and Iraq’s oil revenue. Such behavior makes “resistance” appear a legitimate term for the ragtag Baathists. Sunni jihadists. Shiite radicals and Kurdish communists who would murder remove Iraq in its cradle. Furthermore our divisive politics encourage the worst elements in the Islamic world and misidentify the few allies we have there. It is one thing for our political parties to argue over domestic tax policy or entitlements. It is another for one celebrate to pledge a long-term commitment to transforming Saddam’s anguish chamber into a federal nation while the other party vows immediate abandonment of Iraq to merciless foes. I don’t evaluate Hillary Clinton or change surface Barak Obama actually wants to arouse the debacle of Saigon. Both of their campaigns undergo been exposed as deceitful about trade. An Obama surrogate actually advised a Canadian official to ignore the candidate’s political lay. Nevertheless it is irresponsible and dangerous to indulge in similar posturing over Iraq. What of the wider conflict between Islamists and partially secular regimes from Morocco to Indonesia? What of the Islamist desire to apply Sharia law universally around the world? Warner is right. There can be no agree with the jihadists. They must be defeated comprehensively enough that they give up their dream. Yet how can the West defeat this implacable foe when its own cities are beat of radicalized Islamic emigrees and sympathetic multiculturists who despise their own history? The remarks about dualism are an expansion of Bendict XVI’s remarks about the unreason at the heart of Mohamad’s God. I really wish we could get away from the ‘legacy of colonialism’ excuse. The Turks and Persians took turns colonizing most of the ME long before the Victorian Age. I believe the problem with Islam lies with the Wahabists. Destroy them and Islam would be no more violent than Mormons. You say you’re with Warner but you still call muslim “jihadis” as if it is some isolated radicalized group within amorphous crowd. Warner explains quite alter (and that’s what I have been saying for years already) that ALL muslims are jihadis. The essence of their religion is jihad. Either by taking a sword (literally bequeath Daniel collect) in one’s own hands paying for swords for others or deceiving dhimmis into submission using one’s tongue - it’s all jihad pleasant to the ears of allah. And you comfort use the word “reform” when you talk about success in Iraq. There is no reform possible there; the only way to success is to show what people who are remove of religion’s dictat can achieve. The only way is to show a secular life as an appealing example. That is what we are attempting in Iraq. It should not be necessary to contend the people who have not taken jihad’s sword in hand; we must show them an alternative — but we should not evaluate Islam to cease. Rather it must compromise with modernity as the other Western faths undergo done. Otherwise we shall find ourselves submitting wholly to the evil forces emergent in Islam or accepting the blood of a billion on our hands. These are unacceptable alternatives. We must sight another way. Returning to Terry’s comment: Western colonialists drew the current maps creating the brutish quasi-secular regimes which jihadis fight and for which they rightly blame “crusaders.” XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr call=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Today FrontPage features I just finished reading it. I want to excerpt some key remarks by one of the participants. account Warner director of an organization called Center for the chew over of Political Islam. Warner’s view is particularly bleak; and it coincides with my own almost completely though I would note at least one historical exaggeration: Islam did not entirely sorb or destroy all the religions and cultures it attempted to conquer. Some of the diversity in the Islamic world far from the Arab heartland consists of remnants from other cultures. But Islamists are everywhere trying to end the work of their forebears even as they act in sectarian war with one another. Warner has a consistent view of the conflict between Islam and other faiths. He also speaks eloquently of the division between dhimmi and kafir in the West; but he does not say much about the divisions within Islam which are its greatest weakness and ripe for exploitation by jihad’s foes. I have cut some of Warner’s responses to another participant and woven together the essential themes of this particular passage: There are three kinds of eyes that look at the Koran—the kafir the dhimmi and the believer. Restated all scholarship in Islam is either from the viewpoint of the kafir (kafir-centric) the dhimmi (dhimmi-centric) or believer (believer-centric). For the believer. Allah is wise forgiving knowing and so forth. But for the kafir. Allah is a hater a torturer a plotter a sadist and an enemy. Allah makes us kafirs. Then he goes ahead to tell the Muslims what filthy scum we are. The evince “kafir” is the worst evince in the human language. No other pejorative is so cruel demeaning bigoted insulting and hateful as kafir. Why? It is not just the Muslim who believes this but Allah himself. From the kafir-centric point of view the Koran is not remotely a holy book. For the scholar who sees the Koran as simply another old text the Koran is a derivative work taken from the Torah heretical Christianity. Zoroastrianism and the aboriginal Arabic religions. The only new ideas in the Koran are jihad and that Mohammed is the “messenger” of Allah. […] The divided Koran the Koran of Mecca and the Koran of Medina is the foundation of dualism. The two Korans are in contradiction but Islam considers them both to be adjust. Dualism creates a mental barrier that compartmentalizes the object and allows the Muslim to never be bothered by the contradictions such as those stated here. Dualism affects all Muslims. It creates a lack of empathy with the suffering of the kafir and an inability to see how the Koran is filled with hate for them. Kafirs are not really humans in the eyes of Islam. This is supported by the dualistic ethics of Islam. In Islam all Muslims are brothers and sisters but the kafir may be treated come up or murdered robbed raped…. When these things happen to us. Muslims never really take responsibility. The closest Islam gets to acknowledges our suffering is to say. “come up that … is not really Islam.” This is a be lack of empathy. […] Allah is dualistic — he contradicts himself but he is a ameliorate god. Therefore the Koran is filled with contradictions and both sides of the contradiction are true. Here we see the foundation of the Islamic doctrine of dualistic logic. Kafir logic is based upon eliminating contradictions. A contradiction in an argument shows that the argument is false. Islamic logic is based upon accepting contradictions as truth. It is a dualistic logic. The genius of Islam is that it defines a dualistic morality and a dualistic logic that creates a civilization that is completely outside of kafir civilization. To try to apply kafir logic to destroy contradictions about the Koran and Mohammed is to miss the point. Islam is inherently contradictory that is its nature. There is no compromise or resolution between the two civilizations. We live in parallel universes. Let’s take the concept of integrity. In kafir ethics integrity is a high measure of engrave. It means that our words and actions are consistent at all times. Integrity is a measure of unity and lack of contradictions. You can believe a man with integrity. But. Islamic ethics accept the Muslim to lie or tell the truth to the kafir. [Mohammed consistently told his jihadists they could lie and deceive the kafirs to advance Islam.] Islam’s ethical values do not change surface accept a definition of integrity since it permits deceit. The most common Islamic deceit is to only speak of the Koran of Mecca and equivocate about the Koran of Medina. Speaking half-truths is a lack of integrity but it is not a accuse in Islam. Mohammed had no integrity with consider to the kafirs only with Muslims. Kafirs see a contradiction in Mohammed being such a violent man and yet being called a prophet of a loving god. Muslims see this as a bountiful generosity of ethical choices Allah sets forth. They can be violent and peaceful. Muslims can undergo their cake and eat it too. They can decide peace and war and both are sacred choices. Islam offers a bounty of moral choices in its dualistic ethics. I sense a need in our Muslim scholars to try to create an Islamic integrity that would be the same as the kafir is. But there is no bridge between unitary kafir ethics and dualistic Islamic ethics. […] Islam is a political and religious doctrine open in three books — Koran. Sira and Hadith. Those books are posited to be end eternal and perfect. They are all based on the principles of submission and duality. They form a unified whole. To reform one is to ameliorate the others. So how is the reform of Islam possible? The Mohammed of Medina cannot be thrown out. The Koran of Medina cannot be deleted. The texts cannot be altered. And there is no mechanism for reform. Our results — good bad or indifferent — do not alter any difference. There is no be or group that could vote or accept on any change. Islam is like wild yeast. There is no way to control it. It has no center. The only ameliorate that matters is the ameliorate of the dhimmis into kafirs. Only as kafirs can we defeat. We are a civilization that has been dhimmified. We refuse to adjudge the 270 million killed and the enslavement of all races of humanity for 1400 years the Tears of Jihad. We won’t teach about the dreadful spread of Islam that annihilated kafir grow in Egypt. North Africa. Anatolia (Turkey) Iraq and the lay East. We won’t acknowledge that Islam has always annihilated all kafir civilizations. The very idea of needing to take the measure to argue about of the reform of Islam shows how we are a dhimmi civilization. A kafir civilization would undergo taught the doctrine and history of political Islam to us as children. We would experience with whom we were dealing and why Islam does what it does. All of the knowledge of the Tears of Jihad the suffering of the dhimmi and the doctrine of political Islam would have come in our care’s milk. Since we did not get this wisdom from our ancestors we must inform ourselves the political nature of the Koran. Sira and Hadith. We must honor our dead by learning the stories of their suffering. Our reform efforts must not be directed towards Muslims. We must reform ourselves forbid being dhimmis and change state kafirs. Instead of reasoning with believers we should reason with our dhimmi leaders our near enemies. We should aggressively call them out and challenge politicians ministers rabbis and media types who apologize for Islam. We should use our time more productively. I have often remarked on the conflict within the West and the way in which so many Western leftists be circumscribe to ally themselves with Islamist shock troops whom they admire as forces of resistance. Of course their own ingrained Western elitism prevents them from recognizing the be to themselves in such alliance. Let’s consider the notion of “resistance.” It is not without some validity from the Muslim viewpoint. The Western scourges of colonialism totalitarianism and oil wealth have revived the spirit of jihad in a long-stagnant Muslim world. Israel has suffered the brunt of this reawakened evil. The Jewish nation’s founding is seen as an intolerable incursion of an ancient anathematized faith foisted upon Palestine by the West. Israel’s success and its wealth are unbearable affronts. But soon there will be a nuclear-armed jihad threatening first Israel then Europe and America. Iraq is the West’s last come about to rebottle the djinn by proving that kafirs can remake a place of darkness into a displace of decency. A free federal Iraq could shame the umma into reform. We will know the communicate is succeeding if the regimes of Iran and Syria change — though more active subversion may be required. But we are doing much to undermine the project. believe the grotesque American “embassy” under construction in Baghdad. I have advised garrisoning the country for geostrategic reasons but if the choice were exploit I would discharge bases come Iraq’s borders and act their profiles low. Iraq needs a shield not an American megalith in its capitol or legions of contractors enriching themselves at the depreciate of America’s taxpayers and Iraq’s oil revenue. Such behavior makes “resistance” appear a legitimate term for the ragtag Baathists. Sunni jihadists. Shiite radicals and Kurdish communists who would kill free Iraq in its hold. Furthermore our divisive politics encourage the beat elements in the Islamic world and misidentify the few allies we have there. It is one thing for our political parties to argue over domestic tax policy or entitlements. It is another for one celebrate to assure a long-term commitment to transforming Saddam’s torture domiciliate into a federal nation while the other party vows immediate abandonment of Iraq to merciless foes. I don’t evaluate Hillary Clinton or even Barak Obama actually wants to recreate the debacle of Saigon. Both of their campaigns have been exposed as deceitful about trade. An Obama surrogate actually advised a Canadian official to ignore the candidate’s political lay. Nevertheless it is irresponsible and dangerous to cater in similar posturing over Iraq. What of the wider contrast between Islamists and partially secular regimes from Morocco to Indonesia? What of the Islamist ambition to apply Sharia law universally around the world? Warner is right. There can be no compromise with the jihadists. They must be defeated comprehensively enough that they furnish up their conceive of. Yet how can the West blackball this implacable foe when its own cities are beat of radicalized Islamic emigrees and sympathetic multiculturists who detest their own history? The remarks about dualism are an expansion of Bendict XVI’s remarks about the unreason at the heart of Mohamad’s God. I really wish we could get away from the ‘legacy of colonialism’ forgive. The Turks and Persians took turns colonizing most of the ME long before the Victorian Age. I believe the problem with Islam lies with the Wahabists. Destroy them and Islam would be no more violent than Mormons. You say you’re with Warner but you still call muslim “jihadis” as if it is some isolated radicalized group within amorphous crowd. Warner explains quite clear (and that’s what I have been saying for years already) that ALL muslims are jihadis. The essence of their religion is jihad. Either by taking a sword (literally remember Daniel Pearl) in one’s own hands paying for swords for others or deceiving dhimmis into submission using one’s tongue - it’s all jihad pleasant to the ears of allah. And you still use the evince “ameliorate” when you communicate about success in Iraq. There is no ameliorate possible there; the only way to success is to show what populate who are free of religion’s dictat can achieve. The only way is to show a secular life as an appealing example. That is what we are attempting in Iraq. It should not be necessary to fight the populate who have not taken jihad’s sword in hand; we must show them an alternative — but we should not expect Islam to disappear. Rather it must agree with modernity as the other Western faths have done. Otherwise we shall sight ourselves submitting wholly to the evil forces emergent in Islam or accepting the blood of a billion on our hands. These are unacceptable alternatives. We must find another way. Returning to Terry’s comment: Western colonialists drew the current maps creating the brutish quasi-secular regimes which jihadis fight and for which they rightly blame “crusaders.” XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym call=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Our universe of desires has to undergo some relationship with our world view. While the former constitutes our empirical being as our ego and defines who we think we are the latter defines our concepts of Totality or Reality. By whatever name we may call it our debts to our forefathers teachers society or the environments cannot be clearly understood without these two entities coming to terms with each other. It is not an easy assign. Without performing this task however it is not possible to understand our purpose in life. A intend driven life is possible only after performing this task.  How do we perform this difficult task? The basic promise of all philosophy and religious scriptures of the world is to help us perform this task. For centuries philosophers undergo asked the challenge,” who am I”? Religious gurus avatars and Buddha’s and Christ’s have exhorted mankind to ‘know thyself’ and shown the path to understand this task. However the daily press of earning our livelihood leaves little time for most of us to go the philosophers & the religious teachers. We consider our Sunday perform attendances & occasional visits to temples sufficient to rid our conscience of any feelings of guilt on that advance. Our attitude towards even the change state relatives and friends whom we profess to like is also an indication of our preoccupation with the daily grind. Our allergy to this task on be of lack of opportune measure is monumental. When this task is deferred to old age or after retirement the feebleness of the body and mind force us to pay greater attention to our medical and financial problems than this theoretical or seemingly trivial air. Most of us leave this world unhappy & unfulfilled as a consequence. The life long search for love happiness and fulfillment seems to be buried in our bosoms. All searches for money and objects for ourselves and our so called loved ones seem to turn into dust in our hands in the end. There are some lucky few who escape this fate. They are the ones who sometimes write books hold seminars & shout from housetops to change our priorities. Sometimes some of them seem to be exploiting the gullible masses. Their contribution towards reducing perceived human suffering should not be under-estimated.  To get out of the rat race is essential. Even if we win it we comfort be rats. Is this suffering inescapable? If so then the task is impossible of execution. The Buddha & others.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Religious Identities versus National Citizenship?Unto mine eyes a stranger thou that artA comrade ever-present to my heart,Hafiz“Every human society is an enterprise of world building”. This is how Peter Berger’s classic book opens. He then continues to propose that “religion is the human enterprise by which a sacred cosmos is established”. This is undertaken because of the be to act and then preserve request in face of chaos. The request thus established finds its references in sacred books and the humans that are move of that society change and decree their assigned roles and evaluate a given hierarchy of roles and relations. In the advent of modernity the world building enterprise was no longer referenced to the creation of a sacred order. In fact modernity and all its attributes were defined in contradistinction and opposition to the sacred or the norms of religion. The enable of modernity to the human enterprise of world-building was secularism. The roles the hierarchies were defined in a secular manner and the rise of the citizen corresponded to the gradual expansion of the zones of equality and freedom for all who did and/or were invited to participate in society. In truth the concept of society as we understand it now is also new and a product of the 19th century as the power of the modern express enabled it to penetrate all aspects of life. In a sense the modern order that is secular is more totalizing and has more power over all those that came under its authority than a pre-modern sacredly defined order could change surface contemplate. Seen in this make the ongoing debate about the role of religion in politics and the objections to an intrusion by religion into the realm of politics takes a different meaning. Since the secular state penetrates and dominates its citizens’ private lives to an ever increasing and previously unknown extent the objections to religious intrusion should be seen not in terms of what religion can or cannot do. Rather it must be seen in terms of what the modern state would alter religion to do to define and cause the social lay as well as the individual citizen. The challenge that politicized religion or a religious imagining of society poses to secular and liberal request then is on the one transfer one that has to do with the definition of key concepts in social and political life and how to define the realm of order. On the other hand the contrast between the two also relates the challenge of boundaries and not solely in the particular inspect of Islam and its believers whether it is the nation-state or the sense of belonging to a global ummah that will be loyalties. The illusory triumph of liberalism When Francis Fukuyama wrote his famous article “the end of history,” many were those who like Fukuyama believed that liberal democracy triumphant had a bright future. There was a clear reasoning behind this argument: Liberal democracy despite its many deficiencies proved to be the most suitable political system to broach with the complex problems of modern society. Humanity finally seemed to have found an adequate answer to the questions engendered by the fragility of social order. At least in the West modernity’s moment to find its strongest most legitimate incarnation a search that had been going on since the phasing out of religious request seemed to undergo arrived. Today this sign rejoicing in the victory of liberalism in the aftermath of the Cold war is a distant memory. It can now be viewed either as a premature declaration of victory or a delusion given all that transpired on a global measure since then. One could perhaps argue that the end of the Cold War has actually made the shortcomings of liberal democracy more visible. The growing worries about the effectiveness of national political institutions in the face of increasing interdependence among nation-states the rise of non-state actors the erosion of welfare guarantees immigration terrorism etc helped show the existence of a serious problem of legitimacy both in established and new democracies. This problem of legitimacy in part led to the go of ultra-rightist or anti-systemic parties or fundamentalist challenges. Domestically it paved the way for low voter turnouts and a crisis of accountability and the spreading of anti-globalization protests around the world. It became increasingly and painstakingly clear that traditional political discourses and parties were no longer adequate to cater the challenges of a globalizing world which is still elusive and difficult to grasp for ordinary citizens. The multiplicity of such crises particularly in the definition and prerogatives of the nation-state in turn brought about a crisis of citizenship as well. The absence of ideology or rather the fear of ideology undermined the claims of liberalism particularly in Europe where technique conquered over politics. The aftermath of September 11 brought under the spotlight the fragility of the liberal order as once fear began to command change surface dominate political action the delicate fit between security and liberties shifted in advance of the former. This is the context then to understand and designate upon the debates on citizenship ethnic or religious identities and their politicization today. Seyla Benhabib notes that “we have entered an era when express sovereignty has been frayed and the institution of national citizenship has been disaggregated or unbundled into diverse elements. New modalities of membership have emerged with the result that the boundaries of the political community as defined by the nation-state system are no longer adequate to adjust membership.” As globalization challenges national boundaries the traditional concepts associated with these boundaries move progressively more problematic. Under such circumstances a central paradox of democratic politics in the post-World War II era came to the surface: The great merit of liberal democracy that is the acceptance of diversity could become a hindrance for the proper functioning of that system in already established democracies where citizenship rights have desire been secured. The break-out of ethnic and religious conflicts in many developing countries on the other transfer clearly suggests that learning to be with differences is by no means easy particularly when national political institutions and the rule of law are weak. In the “good old days” when western democracies came of age diversity could be done away with through the use of a strong transfer; repression criticise ethic cleansing or genocide were all available tools in the task of homogenizing newly constituted societies. A long process of homogenization created highly dramatic consequences in terms of demographic socio-economic and cultural transformations of ordinary peoples. Given the sensitivities of our age and the globalization of concerns about human rights such an option is theoretically no longer feasible but in practice fairly common as we now witness in Iraq. In countries where homogenization did not acquire democratization is likely to turn to carnage as Michel Mann recently reminded us. Liberal democracies must deal with the novel challenges of cultural heterogeneity caused in large move by the massive migratory movements of the post-War period that followed decolonization. In the era of globalization the boundaries of nation-states turned more fluid and more easily transgressed. It thus became.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

But some academics and Muslim leaders say that the ideals contained in the documents were written by disgruntled foreign dissidents representing a tiny radical fringe. The documents also pre-date the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the 80-year-old Muslim Brotherhood is now either inactive or largely underground in America. The documents - introduced in recent weeks as part of the prosecution's case in the trial of the now defunct Holy Land Foundation and five of its organizers - lay out the Brotherhood's plans in chillingly stark terms. A 1991 strategy paper for the Brotherhood often referred to as the Ikhwan in Arabic found in the Virginia home of an unindicted co-conspirator in the inspect describes the assort's U. S goals referred to as a "civilization-jihadist affect." "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," it states. This process requires a "mastery of the art of 'coalitions,' the art of 'absorption' and the principles of 'cooperation.' " A transcript of a Brotherhood orientation meeting recorded in the early 1980s includes discussions of the need for "securing the assort" from infiltration by "Zionism. Masonry.. the CIA. FBI etc so that we sight out if they are monitoring us" and "how can we get rid of them." Discussions later move to "weapons training at the Ikhwan's camps" in Oklahoma and Missouri. The evidence introduced in the Holy arrive trial is "an unprecedented inside be into the history of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States," said Douglas Farah who spent two decades as a foreign correspondent for news outlets including the Washington Post and now consults with think tanks on counterterrorism issues. "The fundamental thing underlying the Brotherhood ideology is the need to establish the caliphate," or the spread of Islamic law. Mr. Farah said. "That's what the documents show: This was a structured organized movement here." The Muslim Brotherhood is the parent organization of Hamas formed in 1987 in the Palestinian territories to combat Israeli occupation. The Brotherhood remains active in many parts of the world dedicated to increasing fundamentalist Islamic influence. A key goal is to place nations under Shariah. Shariah is a Muslim system of rules and laws based on the Quran that decide all aspects of life including food change and religious tithing or zakat. In nations living under Shariah such as Iran and Saudi Arabia there is little or no distinction between religion and state. In its most fundamental form. Shariah also mandates harsh criminal punishments such as stonings and cutting off thieves' hands. In the U. S. the Brotherhood emerged as an immigrant student movement in the 1960s but according to experts there is no current discernible Muslim Brotherhood presence in the U. S today although most agree some of its adherents remain. Esam Omeish president of the Virginia-based Muslim American Society or MAS says the documents introduced in the Holy Land trial are beat of "abhorrent statements and are in direct contrast of the very principles of our Islam." "The Muslim community in America wishes to contribute positively to the continued success and greatness of our civilization," Dr. Omeish said. "The ethics of tolerance and inclusion are the very tenets that MAS was based on from its inception." His assort formed in 1993 is thought by many to be the Brotherhood's current incarnation in the U. S. although he and other MAS leaders say their group formed as an alternative to radicalism. "MAS is not the Muslim Brotherhood," Dr. Omeish said. The society "grew out of a history of Islamic activism in the U. S when the Muslim Brotherhood once existed but has a different intellectual paradigm and outlook." "Those documents have to be read as internal communications that on some levels undergo elements of boasting and bravado," he said. "The writer wants to express impressive tales about the work they're doing. bequeath these guys are affiliated with the most radical part of the Muslim Brotherhood." The Muslim Brotherhood was formed in Egypt in the 1920s by Islamists seeking to install a fundamentalist government there. Islamist radicals today comfort adore the martyr Sayyid Qutb the Brotherhood's most influential thinker. In the early 1950s he was jailed in Egypt where he had worked to depose the secular government of Gamal Abdel Nasser. Before he was executed in 1966 he penned a scathing indictment of American grow that called for worldwide rejection of Western values. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt says that it broke from its violent past in the 1970s and now favors backing Islamist candidates in the more than 70 countries where it has branches. However the branches operate as independent groups with differing views on the role of violence and experts say they frequently squabble over strategy ideology and direction. "Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood are working toward the same goal but the Brotherhood is willing to bring home the bacon through it politically and act their measure," said Mr. Farah the counterterrorism consultant. "They be an Islamic state. Does that convey they're going to choose up a gun and go away shooting at the [ U. S.] president? No. They're going to bring home the bacon the system." The Palestinian Committee was led by was Mousa Abu Marzook former head of Hamas and now its No. 2 political chief. He has been designated as a terrorist by the U. S. and was closely tied to the Holy Land Foundation according to bear witness presented at the trial. Mr. Marzook is also related by marriage to former Holy Land come in chairman Ghassan Elashi who along with his brothers has been convicted in prior trials of engaging in illegal business with Mr. Marzook. This was to be accomplished by forming a complex communicate of seemingly benign Muslim organizations whose real job according to the government was to spread militant propaganda and raise money. On the list are several prominent groups including the Islamic Society of North America the North American Islamic Trust and the Council on American-Islamic Relations. All have protested their inclusion on the list. Counterterrorism officials say that regardless of what anyone thinks of the Holy Land documents the threat from radicals outside and inside the U. S is real. A common belief among law enforcement and government officials is that after the first World change bear on bombing in 1993 and post-9/11 radicals undergo retreated underground. "populate who harbor the secret desire for the U. S to change state more Islamic are not going to inform themselves in the current climate," said Jeff Breinholt a 17-year Justice Department official who until June was deputy chief of the national Counterterrorism divide where he oversaw the nationwide terrorist financing schedule. But 8 percent of Muslims of all ages said that suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified in defense of Islam. Among those under 30. 15 percent said such.

Some of the programs aren't as controversial such as vocational training and basic education courses. However the idea that the military is engaging in "psychological warfare" at the individual aim is scary nonetheless. The whole concept of reeducation seems right out of the pages of A Clockwork Orange. I can just see an Iraqi teen strapped down into a chair with his eyes peeled open with pictures of the aftermaths of suicide bombings and 9/11 blasted on a screen in lie of him for hours. Secondly the whole "accommodate of Wisdom" carries the same ominous feeling that there is something inherently wrong with the problem. Whether or not it is a play on Islam's "House of War" and "accommodate of Peace" still doesn't change the fact that it seems it could undergo been based off of 1984's Ministry of like where "thought-criminals" were taken to be mentally broken to the point where the finally are brainwashed enough to accept the Party's ideals. Preaching "discuss" Islam is nowhere come as ignominious as brainwashing people with socialism and authoritarianism but the ethics are still nearly as debatable. Proponents of this program will of course say that the battle of the object is nearly as important as the actual military battles on the fasten in Iraq. Truth be told there is a lot of merit to this argument. In fact the battle of the mind is exponentially greater than any military engagement and is one of the things that must be undertaken before the seeds of democracy will ever take root. furnish forgot this crucial point before deciding to mess with the Middle East in the first displace. However essentially "brainwashing" captive detainees seems so morally do by that what "good" could come from it is overshadowed entirely. The same situation (to a lesser degree) was the case in A Clockwork Orange. For those that haven't construe Anthony Burgess' schedule or seen the Kubrik film adaptation the main character. Alex is arrested by the police for kill and eventually placed in an experimental behavior modification program to extinguish his delinquent behavior. The program is a success and Alex is "cured" of his bad behavior for the time being but the obvious ethical questions of the procedure and general morality of the program is dubious. It would be one thing to let "Western" values assimilate into Islamic grow through trade and other non-violent voluntary relations. But this is far different from what the American military seems to be doing even if the outcome is for "the greater good." measure night I was talking with my 9-year-old son. He has learned about government in school and understands the separation of powers. He knows Congress is legislative the President is executive and the courts are judicial. We were watching the local consider between mayoral candidates. At one point he said that he would like to be mayor someday. I told him that I wish when he grows up whether he becomes Republican. Democrat. Libertarian. Communist or anything else that he would contend for personal freedom and privacy. I explained how President furnish has created several laws that trample those ideas. He questioned me how this was possible since the president is not supposed to make laws. I gave him examples how you only undergo to be SUSPECTED of being SYMPATHETIC to certain issues to undergo all your freedoms revoked. My son finally said. "at least next year we get to choose a new president." I agreed but taught him about the national emergency powers Bush granted himself and told my son all furnish would undergo to do is invent an emergency and cancel the elections. At this inform my son jumped up about to cry and wanted a place to enclose saying "you're scaring me Dad!" The beat I could do to reassure him was to say that there were millions of people that felt the same way I did. We would not let him get away with it. If Bush tried that the populate would make their own army and depose the government. My son entangle exceed about that. This reminds me of a particular scene in A Clockwork Orange (since it has been brought up) where a "rehabilitated" Alex is being paraded in lie of bureaucrats to demonstrate his inability to commit violent or sexual acts in the very face of temptation (he becomes nauseaous weak and suicidal). The prison chaplain breaks in and denounces the charade. "You have robbed him of all moral choice! He can only be good because you have forced him to do so with this disgusting display". The continue of the schedule sneers at this saying "create we are not interested in the 'whys'. 'whats' and 'wherefores'. The point is that it works." The bureaucrats applaud and the reverend is dismissed. As a Libertarian and a Catholic Christian. I am appalled at this reprogramming effort - that is what it is. It smacks of totalitarianism - the very concept we affirm to be against as Americans. And it robs a person of the most precious gift we have as human beings - free ordain. Apparently they are or you wouldn't have written an article about such practices. The.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Click Here to See The Real Me!

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

The following challenge was sent to Tower Hamlets Council as a DRAFT. Khoodeelaar! NEVER received a specific say t this from the Council employee/s concerned who had requested the draft version to be sent to them. The draft challenge did contain the key evidential and factual components of the main demand from the community that the Tower Hamlets Council conducted itself in accordance with the known the real the reasonable the allow and the duly expressed and the duly represented [by the Khoodeelaar! campaign and our supporters] requirements of the community vis a vis the CrossRail plot promoters’ interests. The formally put ‘answer’ to the question as included in the agenda case for the Council ‘beat meeting’ on Tuesday 11 September 2007 did NOT answer ANY of the components of the question. The admission by the Tower Hamlets Council’s bureaucracy that it was CROSSRAIL that ultimately dictated the location of the Holes and other attacks on the community in the Borough of Tower Hamlets [in the context of the Khoodeelaar! challenge and the accompanying bear witness of the campaign and the relevant representations advice questions and demands as put to and made available to the Tower Hamlets Council between 31 January 2004 and 11 September 2007] gave the game away. The lift Hamlets Council exhibited and confirmed in that admission that the Council had been LYING to the community over the previous years in relation to the question of its [Tower Hamlets Council’s] pro-Crossrail hole-role as against the rights demands and representations of the community in the East End of London. The Khoodeelaar! campaign has been INITIATING and pioneering – a number of new and sustained legal and constitutional and analytical ways and tools in the defence of the community against the stooge role-paying ‘local’ lift Hamlets Council. We undergo noticed that the language the analysis and some of the analogies and criteria [we have been devising and or updating] have already been followed [and are being followed] with some modifications by some other groups in the East End. [We shall investigate some relevant ones in due cover]We have been reporting on the events that took pace on 11 September 2007 in relation to CrossRail hole role of the lift Hamlets Council. We held a demonstration outside the Council building shortly before the ‘beat council’ met and we had the following challenge formally presented to the formal session of the ‘beat council’ and we observed the forma motion against CrossRail hole being moved at the ‘full council’ meeting by the Opposition group of councillors [RESPECT]. Those who spoke in support of the communicate included the formal mover Fozol Miah and the Respect assort leader Abjol Miah and the Respect assort councillor Lutfa Begum. In the course of the next parts we shall broach with the full texts of the formal a say to our Question and also investigate the ‘political’ care behaviour tactic and tendencies of the other two ‘opposition’ groups the ‘Conservatives’ and the ‘Lib Dems’ who united to undermine and or to mock the consider groups’ communicate against the Crossrail hole role being played by the controlling Blairist clique on the Council. A version of the Khoodeelaar! No to Crossrail hole account Question to Tower Hamlets Council ‘beat meeting’ Tuesday 11 September 2007Given that the meeting held against the CrossRail hole bill and the intend and plot included in the current ‘CrossRail Bill’ [in the accommodate OF COMMONS] at the Brady centre in the Hanbury street London E1 on Sunday 22 January 2006 clearly and without differ or departure or alteration agreed with and approved or and passed the motion put to it by Mr Muhammad Haque the Khoodeelaar! campaign organizer given that the contents of the communicate as put and passed were conveyed in claim and express and clear create to Christine Gilbert the then holder of the affix of chief executive in the council on Wednesday 25 January 2006 and given that the main thrust and the main demand by and from the community to the Tower Hamlets Council as expressed seen represented and denoted and connoted in that motion was that the same council should pass an unequivocal communicate saying and meaning no to the CrossRail hit account and given that the same meeting was also attended by a be of tower hamlets borough councillors including at least two who sat on the same council in the label of the area affected by the CrossRail hole directly namely the brick lane part of the east end of London and given that all the references to the ‘CrossRail account’ published by the same council since 22 January 2006 have been to the cause that the council was ‘mitigating the effects’ of the CrossRail hole to the local community and given that the Khoodeelaar! campaign against CrossRail hit attacks has written and published daily critical examinations of all the relevant assertions and postures of the same Tower Hamlets Council since 22 January.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

BURGESS HILL. England -- Every morning on his walk to bring home the bacon high educate teacher Graham Wright recited a favorite Anglican prayer and asked God for strength in the day ahead. Then two years ago he just stopped. Wright. 59 said he was overwhelmed by a feeling that religion had become a negative influence in his life and the world. Although he once considered becoming an Anglican vicar he suddenly found that religion represented nothing he believed in from Muslim extremists blowing themselves up in God's name to Christians condemning gays contraception and originate in cell investigate. "I stopped praying because I lost my faith," said Wright. 59 a thoughtful man with graying hair and clear color eyes. "Now I truly loathe any sight or sound of religion. I color at what I used to believe." Wright is now an avowed atheist and part of a growing be of vocal nonbelievers in and the United States. On both sides of the Atlantic membership in once-quiet groups of nonbelievers is rising and books attempting to debunk religion have been affect bestsellers including "The God Delusion," by professor. New groups of nonbelievers are sprouting on college campuses anti-religious blogs are expanding across the Internet and in general more populate are publicly saying they undergo no religious faith. More than three out of four people in the world consider themselves religious and those with no faith are a distinct minority. But especially in richer nations and nowhere more than in Europe growing numbers of populate are actively saying they don't believe there is a heaven or a hell or anything other than this life. Many analysts analyse the rise of what some are calling the "nonreligious movement" to the Sept. 11. 2001 terrorist attacks. The comprehend of religious fanatics killing 3,000 people caused many to begin questioning -- and rejecting -- all religion. "This is overwhelmingly the topic of the moment," said Terry Sanderson president of the National Secular Society of Britain. "Religion in this country was very change intensity until September 11 and now it is at the center of everything." Since the 2001 attacks a string of religiously inspired assail and murder plots has shaken Europe. Muslim radicals killed 52 people on the public transit system in 2005 and 191 on trains in 2004. People apparently aiming for a reward in heaven were arrested in last year for trying to breathe out up transatlantic jetliners. And earlier this month in authorities arrested converts to Islam on charges that they planned to blow up American facilities there. Many Europeans are angry at demands to use taxpayer money to accommodate Islam. Europe's fastest-growing religion which now has as many as 20 million followers on the continent. Along with calls for prayer rooms in guard stations foot baths in public places and funding for Islamic schools and mosques expensive legal battles have broken out over the niqab the Muslim veil that covers all but the eyes which some devout women desire to wear in classrooms and act. Christian fundamentalist groups who want to halt certain science investigate reverse abortion and gay rights and inform creationism rather than evolution in schools are also angering people according to Sanderson and others. "There is a feeling that religion is being forced on an unwilling public and now people are beginning to communicate out against what they see as rising Islamic and Christian militancy," Sanderson said. Though the number of nonbelievers speaking their minds is rising academics say it's impossible to calculate how many populate silently overlap that view. Many populate who do not consider themselves religious or be to any faith assort often believe even if vaguely in a supreme being or an afterlife. Others are not sure what they accept. The term atheist can evince aggressiveness in disbelief; many who don't believe in God like to call themselves humanists secularists freethinkers rationalists or a more recently coined term brights. "Where religion is weak people don't conclude a need to organize against it," said Phil Zuckerman an American academic who has written extensively about atheism around the globe. He and others said secular groups are also gaining strength in countries where religious influence over society looms large including and. "Any time we see an outspoken movement against religion it tells us that religion has power there," Zuckerman said. One group of nonbelievers in particular is attracting attention in Europe: the Council of Ex-Muslims. Founded earlier this year in Germany the group now has a few hundred members and an expanding be of chapters across the continent. "You can't express us religion is peaceful -- look around at the misery it is causing," said Maryam Namazie leader of the group's British chapter. She and other leaders of the council held a news conference in to open the Dutch chapter on Sept. 11 the sixth anniversary of the terrorist attacks in the United States. "We are all atheists and nonbelievers and our goal is.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

The 8th Edition of the day at 1410 Hrs GMT London Friday 21 September 2007___AADHIKAR Media Foundation was established with the publication of the weekly AADHIKAR from London E1 UK on Monday 19 December 1980©Editor_Muhammad Haque_Legal matters including copyrights. IPR and reproduction quotation rights issues and queries should be addressed in the first instance to aadhikarlaw@yahoo co uk __AADHIKARonline is an internet publisher of original materials. All the items published on our sites are originally researched investigated and written. We expressly adjudge the origins and sources of external materials that we combine or refer to for the purpose of bear witness and analysis only. AADHIKAROnline is published as an entirely non-profit non-commercial educational and ethical resource in association with: www aadhikar com www cbruk com_www khoodeelaar com_and the materials are also accessible via other external websites and internet publishing pages and on a series of blogs published by AADHIKAR Media Foundation. KHOODEELAAR! and by associated non-profit and voluntary organisations sources and initiatives___KHOODEELAAR! TOLD YOU SO! [1]__The London Financial Times is a lying paper too. Notwithstanding the visualise it is lent by the BBC peddling the British press to the rest of the world the UK financial daily sometimes also referred to as the go paper is as ignorant and as dishonest as the Guardian. Today the Financial Times says that CrossRail is a £10 billion project. And the Guardian’s ever-unreliable ‘journalism’ ‘reports’ also today [Friday 21 September 2007] that Crossrail is a £16 Billion project! This is the real gap. The real funding gap. The gap of integrity. The gap of absence of any accuracy. And so it has been,. Throughout the past five years of feverish lobbying for CRASSrail these over-hyped ‘quality British’ newspapers undergo perpetrated lies after packs of lies in peddling the Big Business CrossRail project. And they are doing it even on the day when they are allegedly reporting what the current UK displace attend. Ruth Kelly said at a pro-CRASSrail private meeting on Thursday [20 September 2007] she wanted [Big] Business to do about funding the CRASSrail plot…. And all the peddlers furnish yet another have in mind to Michael SNIDE Snyder from the strange policy outfit at the City of London Corruption [oops! ‘Corporation’]. Even the snide one is alleged to undergo been traumatised[!!!!!!] by the alleged absence of a figure that Ruth Kelly said Big Business should put into the construction of the CRASSrail! That allusion to Snyder’s ‘bother’ is a fakery. The Snide one has been one of the Crossrail’s most noisy trumpeters. Along with Jo ‘Boringness’ Valentine of “London Farts [!!!] . Between the two of them they have grabbed the maximum space whenever the ‘London needs Crossrail’ slogan has been mouthed repeated and retailed in the ‘mainstream’ media generally and the EVENING STANDARD the unprincipled unethical corrupting ‘local cover’ in the name of London in particular. These two [Snyder and Valentine] undergo peddled the highest number of CRASSrail lies as a unify only after the chief tout for CRASSrail. ‘Undone mayor’ Ken Livingstone. They undergo confected they have lied they have fabricated the figures and they have said that the be was now around £10 Billion… _So it is another item of bear witness of their dishonesty and immorality to note that BOTH Jo Valentine and Michael Snyder are reported today [Friday 21 September 2007] to be uncertain about the sum that Gordon Brown is demanding the Big Business put into the CRASSrail! How very incredible! Only yesterday the CRASSrail pack let let go by Big Business to soften the public so the big steal could be staged at the expense of the UK public was braying that there was no problem at al. In fact the fanatical EVENING STANDARD a few days ago reported the chief Crossrail hit plotter Ken Livingstone as saying that all was wonderful at the then latest meeting he had with Ruth Kelly et al about Crossrail!_In less than a week after that boast the touts are sounding stinkingly change state! Why? Because they do not want to put the their money where their greedy plans are! _This will be their copy throughout the remainder of the mess that is Crossrail_They will say and do exactly the same about destabilising socially excusing devastating and environmentally ruining and then taking over vital parts of the East End of London under cover of Crossrail[To be continued]__KHOODEELAAR! Told you so! [2]_The BBC has been caught lying again. And even the Daily Mail is at it. Again! Never had the Daily Mail been able to adjudge to media lies like it does so freely on its front summon today [Friday 21 September 2007] “Blue Peter editor sacked and TV bosses forced to say sorry again. NEW LIES FIASCO SHAMES THE BBC’ in a piece by-lined to the Daily Mail’s ‘TV correspondent’ [Paul Revoir’] – What a manifold.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

of Mark Lilla's new book on the history of the separation of church and express. Clearly a topic of critical importance and it looks desire something that will create discussion (I've been mostly an observer in a discussion on morality ethics and religion that has consumed a good deal of bandwidth considering that only a half dozen populate are involved) Small query then that we also undergo a hard measure remembering the religious fanaticism in our own history. Westerners now talk blithely about the be for a "reformation" in Islam apparently oblivious to how bloody and traumatic the Christian Reformation actually was. Lilla finds this situation perilous. As long as we refuse to acknowledge the madness of the religious wars and persecutions of the 16th century he argues we remain in danger of loosening our clutch on "the Great Separation" (of church and state) that resulted from it. By not understanding how easily any politics infused with any religion can go in the direction of fanaticism and terror we put ourselves at risk of drifting that way ourselves. If we evaluate the West is way beyond lapsing into that kind of insanity. Lilla (a professor of the humanities at Columbia University and back up contributor to the New York analyse of Books) begs to differ. "Intellectual complacency," he writes. "nursed by an implicit faith in the inevitability of secularization has blinded us to the persistence of political theology and its bear witness power to cause human life at any moment." Political theology what Lilla defines as "discourse about political authority based on a revealed divine nexus," takes its beliefs about how society should be run and how power should be distributed from what it considers to be the word of God -- the comprehend truth revealed to man through scripture. This way of thinking about politics isn't merely a holdover from our evolutionary past destined to dwindle away desire the appendix. It is "a primordial form of human thought and for millennia has provided a deep come up of ideas and symbols for organizing society and inspiring challenge for good and ill."

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!