Subject: If Christianity is bad but not yet evil (again) can the reverse be said for Islam?
But wait, before we get to my counterpoint article consider these facts.
If I had a religion, which I don't, but if I did it would be called, Selfishness. Selfishness is a virtue. Notice how it is that many many many people call me immoral or even evil because of my creed. I hold to the premise that selfishness is truly a virtue as Ayn Rand, et al. have demonstrated and not a vice as too many others believe and claim and some even say a wicked vice and practically all religions would--if pressed--call Selfishness evil.
So it would appear that it is ok for others to label my creed immoral or evil but it is not ok for me to so label T.H.E.I.R's when diametrically opposed to mine.
This, to speak bluntly, is bullstuff (well, semi-bluntly).
So, I repeat:
Subject: If Christianity is bad but not yet evil (again) can the reverse be said for Islam.
Consider a recent Commentary Article that my local newspaper (the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Minneapolis, Minnesota) chose to print. That article was subtitled, "What reason do Minnesotans have to fear the emergence of Muslims in their state? None." (Stephen B. Young: Islamic and Western philosophy aren't so far apart, Minneapolis Star Tribune, April 28, 2010).
I read that article and I (as an a-theist--one who is without a belief in any kind of diety--Westerner) have to write: "What does this ex-Christian turned a-theist Minnesotan have to fear from Muslims and Lutherans? Everything."
truth be told the real battle is between Faith and Reason: reason
(validating knowledge based on the presense
of evidence) is good and faith
(validating knowledge based on the absense
of evidence) leads to evil. The reason
Christianity is just bad and not yet evil (again like it was during the Spanish Inquisition Century) is because it continues-to-this day to grant some quarter of mercy to reason whereas Islam grants none, nada, zero zip
. (Faith without reason is dangerous, Reason without faith is redundant.)
Islam is as close to pure
faith as you can get and since modern philosophy has demonstrated that faith and force
go hand-in-hand, Islamists ultimately or I suppose I should say, more
rapidly and more
unimpededly resort to initiated physical force as the preferred
means to getting their way.
And by preferred here I mean, only. Initiated physical force is the only way remaining to you to get others to accept your view of things once you abandon reason and its use of persuasion as the only way to get others to see things your way. (Individually, developmentally, Islamists more rapidly and more unimpededly abandon the reasoning process when the going gets tough. In Islam, when the going gets tough the tough beat up their neighbors. Contrast this with Christianity, here when that same going gets tough the tough beat up their self.)
(our internal Requirer of evidence and logic) relies
on persuasion as the means of convincing self and others of the rightness of reason's ways. Faith
(that inner I-could-care-less-about-logic-and-evidence
of initiated physical force being used against the self as means of convincing the self. For example, Jehovah--one of the names for the Christian God--threatens me with eternal damnation if I don't take his existence as real and his authority on everything to be the truth. And if I say, no I don't accept being in hell forever, rather I choose
of my own
-free-will to go somewhere else (eg, Hawaii say) "god" says, No!, I the all powerfull will keep you against-your-will
, that is, by force
, in hell, forever.
I mean come on folks, give me a ....
So it appears people learn how to use force (from the masters) as the means to getting their "messages" accepted.
Faith is about internal relationships and essentially relies on the self doing a number on the self before that self moves on to "others".
relies on actual
initiated physical force as the means of convincing others. "Once you have them by the b...s their hearts and minds will follow" could be the true sentiment of a full fledged thug except for the fact it is an out of context comment that fails to differentiate between initiated
physical force and retaliatory
physical force. Initiated physical force is evil, retaliatory is good and moral and right because it is self
-defensive and defending the self against initiators of physical force is the only justifiable
, that is, moral use of physical force in human relationships.
This is why faith is bad: because initiated physical force against another is evil and faith and (initiated) force go hand-in-hand. (Faith leads to initiated force as every intellectually honest and/or adequately self-aware Christian knows through first hand experience with such "action impulses"--impulses they as human individuals are still capable of containing BECAUSE of that quarter of mercy they still grant to reason.)
Today, because of Islam's suicide-murderer bombers (I still have not heard of any Muslims blowing themselves up in the name of their religion standing alone in the middle of nowhere with no one else around) it is easier to see--for those who now reject self-made blindness, it is easier to see--how faith and force do go hand-in-hand.
is a mental process--specifically, a psychoepistemological
is a physical process--specifically, a beating up of one human being by another human being by physical means that results in the actual death of the person being physically attacked or that results in a credible threat to the life of the one being attacked. (I am not saying that all initiated physical force comes from faith-based minds, but what I am saying is because of the link between faith and force all faith-based minds are dangerous
and I think that Islam's suicide-murderer-bombers demonstrate the point. And if we add in Jim Jones' Guyana
we have an in-spades demonstrated point.)
Religion then as a faith-as-process event is a mental choice, a mental choice to make ones mind act in a certain way when it comes time to validate ones own answers to fundamental questions of a religious nature or theme. Is there a god? Yes. Based on what evidence? I don't need evidence, I only need faith. Was Jesus crucified by being nailed to a large wooden cross where he died and then was buried and then latter rose from the dead and came back to life? Well he has the nail holes in his risen-from-the-dead-now-alive-body's hands and feet to "prove" it. Can I see them? Oh, yee of little ....
Religion, thank god, is not Politics.
Politics is the systematic, organized answers by the dominant groups within cultures to the theoretical question, How should we help others and/or ourselves get elected or otherwise be appointed to public office? (The more fundamental-identified-by-the-Objectivists Political Science question: How should individuals act in a social context? is usually only something Statesmen consider. Day-to-day Politicians for the most part are not capable or simply don't have the time and/or resources and/or talents to deal with such a fundamental, philosophical question. But since We the People do have the time--in fact we can't afford not to deal with fundamentals--we do do so with every election cycle and usually vote--with a for better or for worse sentiment--our conscience into office).
In America, Politics is all of us acting (out) in our own way to get our "people" into public office.
Human beings don't act unless they think they are right.
(If you doubt this, then the next time you are going to go to your local store for some milk and bread convince yourself that if you do you will get in a car accident or be run over and killed and then see how "motivated" you are to go get your daily bread.)
Christianity--to its credit and my safety
--has separated Religion from Politics. When I was a young, growing and developing Christian we were encouraged to see ourselves as above politics and no self-respecting religionist would dirty his hands so-to-speak dealing with political issues.
Hence, separation of Church and State--render unto ... and so on.
But then enter those approximately 1 in 5 or 1.2 billion Islamists the world over (including the 160,000 actual
radical Islamic killer terrorists I had estimated in an earlier work
) who have extremely large numbers among their billions who think mental processes and physical action should not
be separated when it comes to dealing with individuals
in societal groups
but rather should
be integrated--the actual
Theocracies of the Middle East: Saudi Arabia, Iran etc.
Islam--to its discredit and my rational fear for my safety
--has integrated religion and politics. And notice I didn't say combined but integrated. Integrated means inseparable.
So until and unless an ever increasing majority of Muslims in Minnesota (and around the world) start preaching OUT LOUD for the separation of Mosque and State this is one Minnesotan who is not going to sleep at night with both eyes closed.