Goodbye Sweden

This is related to Chapter Eight; part thirty, HUMANIST POINT OF VIEW from my blog.
Here is that link: http://trueleftvision.blogspot.com/2010/11/chapter-eight-humanist-point-of-view.html

Chapter Nine; MY TEAM COMES TO PLAY part thirty-six

Of course I would insist that any course on world religion or religion in general have a section on atheists. It is clear that the atheist community has something to say about a great many number of subjects. Everything from climate change to fair housing, political corruption, good business policies, how the wars are being conducted, public funding of religious based organizations, equal rights for all Americans and so forth.

Keep in mind that while many atheists may actually take interest and have views on these and a great many more subjects the views held can be quite diverse. In Sam Harris' book The End of Faith, he makes great points about good reasons to minimize the influence of religion and why it should be minimized as much as possible. He spends a great deal of time dealing directly with Christianity, Islam and touching on Judaism and other faiths. But near the end of the book where he is trying to make his case for ending faith he slips out of the garden and begins trying really hard to justify a form of mysticism that separates the Conscience and objective awareness and the duality nature of our conscience existence.

I feel that Harris is either trying to hard to tie in a eastern philosophical view or exert his belief in some sort of a mystic world. While Harris went to some great lengths to try to make the connection to human happiness at the end of the book but he fails to make the step by step link cited in his book that, “spiritual experience, ethical behavior and strong communities are essential for human happiness.”

I would say that to a degree I found this distressing as he seemed to be endorsing a version of a spiritual nature possibility a forum of Buddhism. This however seemed to be the point of his book since he ends the main section of the book with his title. I would have to conclude that the end of faith would lead to a spiritual nature.

This is an example for me that atheists can agree with one another most of the time but have serious disagreements about other subjects. I thank Harris greatly for his book as it has done much for promoting a positive and a more concise view to the general public of what many atheist see as what is wrong with religion and why religious adherents can be use to hid more radical beliefs within the same general belief system. While the typical Methodist may disagree with abortion, it was that religious protection afford to the more radical Christian groups such and Operation Rescue and others that led a person like Scott Roeder to shoot and kill Dr. George Tiller in Wichita, Kansas while Tiller served as an usher at his Lutheran church. Roeder's radical views found a home in the radicalism of such organizations though I understand that he was almost universally condemned by even the abortion opponents. At least at the time. If some fellow Christian was to come against the views of Roeder, Roeder's defense could be something as simple as, “You don't understand what god wants to happen to Tiller.”

Statements like this in a religious context cannot be disputed. Yet I continue to be amazed by the religious adherents who will over and over again say that “they” are the only ones that has the “truth.” I would not expect to hear this if I was to speak about my objections to Harris' conclusion as I mentioned earlier. I feel as reasonable people Harris would at least attempt to listen to my reasons for disagreeing with him until he either determined I had no knowledge or comprehension of what he was talking about or he was able to see my perspective or some other alternative. Many believers also feel that if they were to loose their faith that they would have been a fool for all their life in which they based their actions upon their religion. I can see this but it brings to mind a story I heard where a researcher into some concept made a discovery breakthrough and when he did the presentation of the concept one professor that had been looking into an alternative view for several decades stood up in the audience and told him that he was thankful to him for reveling the errors of his ways. Then the professor led the applause for the presenter. I use this example to show that having accurate information is the goal of the rational thinker. While to the adherent, faith is the goal. So to destroy the faith is to destroy their world.

That is one great advantage to being a skeptic vis-a-vis an atheist. Disagreeing with each other and vigorous debate is a keystone of education and knowledge. But the acquisition of new reality based knowledge in religions either causes them to split, have war, or modify into a new belief system to accommodate the new reality. Believers that are convinced by themselves or by others that the actions they take in the name of their religion are right in spite of how they cause harm to their fellow man will stop at nothing to reach their goals. The actions that require one to have faith, rule out reason as faith rules out science. After all, “God” cannot have his followers second guess their actions or purposes with reason, logic, facts and science.

According the the book Atheists, Atheists are much more likely to support causes that have nothing to do with their belief system when it indicates an injustice. An atheist is also a more honest person than a person which holds dogmatic beliefs or are of a right wing mentality. There were other somewhat surprising but somewhat confirming results in the book that show atheists not only to be more honest and more self aware of the state of their behavior and mental state but are also more critical of people that both share and do not share their opinions. I would have to contend that this is in of itself a good definition of being a skeptic. If only the adherents in the religions were able to or encouraged to question those that provide the answers openly instead of having the same dogmatic message yelled into their brains or chanted week after week until they are mind numbed, we might have a much more peaceful and advance planet to live on. To wrap up this section I would like to just add;

GO ATHEISTS! YOU'RE NUMBER 1!

Coming Next Time;

Chapter Nine; FUNDAMENTALISTS, THE BIBLE IS NOT INEERENT part thirty-seven

Chapter Eight; THE BEST TEAM IN THE WORLD part thirty-two

Without a doubt Christianity is the largest team in the world. God has so blessed this religion that it can now be represented by hundreds of dogmatic denominations. Spanning from The Russian Orthodox Church to Shakers to Jehovah Witness to Episcopal to Westboro Baptist Church and all the variation in between. According to the website adherents.com Christianity makes up about 2.1 billion of the planets population.
Coming in at number two, but gaining fans fast, is the religion of Islam. They are made up of a bit more cohesive group since the only way you can really understand it is to learn a 1400 plus year old language that is suppose to be God's special way he talks to the rest of the billions of people on the planet. [ Just an aside, It seems God would have wrote this in the most commonly used language in the World. Or at least did it in multiple languages at the same time.] I am sure that what we call English did not even exist that long ago.

This in of itself brings in difficulties with the words of The Qur'an. First the mere concept of using words to transmit meaning to other humans is one of the poorer methods that can be used. The closer a person is to the person talking to them the more likely they are to understand the words that are being told to them. Face to face discussions are the best. And we all know how bad those can be. But they help to see the facial expressions of the person plus you can ask questions to make sure the message is received properly. Next would be a visual or recorded message. Again the receiver of the message would be able to see the facial expressions of the person speaking but not ask questions of them.

Other better ways of communication than text include the phone, audio messages and pictures. All of these have advantages over simple text communications. Most people have experienced the situation when reading a message and having to ask the person that wrote the note to help decipher the message. That is just a level one transmission of a message. Imagine how much more chances for errors in understanding as the distance from the person creating the message increases in both space and time to the reader. Of course this is an allegorical example but one that we know for certain is that through time words develop more and different meanings. My own language, English, would not be at all recognizable to me as not only did the words have different meanings but the characters to write the words used a different alphabet at that time. English started out using a runic alphabet. At the time Muhammad was getting his dictation lessons from the Angel Gabriel anything written in what we would call English would be mostly unreadable to Today's readers. For an example try reading Beowulf in the original form.

So this is one area that the users of Arabic have an handicap with and hence with The Qur'an itself. Common sense would indicate the passage of time would change the words and meanings of words from the original text. Even if this text was kept as accurate as possible. The passage of time would lead readers of The Qur'an to have a more modern and hence different meanings of this work of ancient literature. One could argue that if this message was so important to have accurate for all time for the salvation of humanity, the best way to do it would be in the age of modern media where much more than written text could be used to enhance and help make the message truly timeless and clear. After all, an all powerful God should be able to save people that have already died too. No need to risk getting the message wrong by the silly humans that God created. This way God could really be his own man and run the whole production of the message from start to finish.

Anyway, the Muslims have their own sects and divisions as well but due to the language thing it keeps them a bit more on track than Christianity. But even with that in mind there are more than a dozen dialects of Arabic. Some of these speakers are not able to converse with one another while speaking the same language. That would be as if talking to a person from England couldn't understand the English that a person from Texas or South Africa was speaking. But if you wondered how one becomes a Muslim all you have to do is say; “There is no god but Allah and Mohammad is his prophet.” Oh, I think you have to say it in Arabic for it to really count though.

Some of the more common division in Islam include the Shiite and Sunnis. From there you have divisions that include Al-Quada, Hamas, Sufis, Druze and other religious and political Islamic groups.

This group is indeed a go getter when they take the field. They have a special way of governing where they can get enough control to be a government. They invoke sharia law. This special law would be like Christians going back to the Old Testament and carrying out the laws of Leviticus and the rest of the Old Testament. There team believes that Allah is so worried that his faithful male followers are so unable to control their minds when it comes to women that he must have all woman that wish to avoid being raped cover up themselves from head to toe except for their eyes and hands and feet.

I don't know about how powerful Allah is but I have been reading his book and it seems to say he is pretty strong. One would think that a God that can assure 40 to 72 virgins after you die for him would have no problem having his male followers control themselves around women that are naked or any other level of clothing off or on. I wouldn't think that Allah would let that slip his mind when making his literary masterpiece in the desert with the Angel Gabriel.

But on this team uniforms are very important, one would go as far to say life and death for the women that subject to the dogma of Islam. I am not sure if there is a certain color they have to be but I have seen both light blue and black. I would think the Detroit Lions would fit in well with this color scheme. This particular religion is such a slave to fashion, or lack there of, will even hold women that are not from their religion to the same insane standards as the woman that believe in their religion. (See the section DOES ALLAH REALLY CARE? REALLY? in part twenty-seven.)

So the Muslin world has about 1.1 billion to 1.5 billion adherents around the world. Most, of course, are in the Middle East. They also have a large number of adherents in southwest Asia and growing across Europe also. Islam adherents want to have the entire world either become adherents or die. At least their goals are clear enough. Of course this comes at different levels of fortitude of the adherents themselves. But The Qur'an teaches that the eventual position of the infidel is to convert or submit to Islam. The unbeliever is not highly regarded in the religion of Islam. 

Coming Next Time:

BELIEVE WHAT? part thirty-three

 

Chapter Seven; RELIGION SHINES ITS LIGHT part twenty-six

Religion has truly surpassed the power of every invention that has followed it. As the Bronze Age, Iron age, middle ages, the age of enlightenment and the Modern ages have come and gone and gone, religion has been the enemy of progress every step of the way. To the faithful, things like the Hubble Space Telescope, nuclear weapons, and climate change are nothing compared to the power of a faith that believes in a god. If anything man can learn comes into conflict with the faithful, the Bible will win out. It either has to be wrong or misunderstood of the work of Satan because the Bible cannot be wrong according to the faithful. This concept is shown is several ways.One way is the refusal to accept scientific answers to the questions that it provides such as in astronomy, paleontology, biology and other disciplines that function quite well with the facts that lay outside the Bible's stories.

But not only does religion have the power to terrorize, it also the power to influence every level of behavior of the adherents and to some degree the people that live in the society of the dominate religious belief. Things such as clergy gender, celibacy, wearing of the hair or jewelry, view toward homosexuals, what type of food to eat and role of women and many more issue are all answered conclusively by the dogma of the religion. Each religion either pushes that they are divinely right or at least the best choice to please and honor their god. Even in the pluralistic beliefs such as Baha'i Faith.


It is true at the heart of Christianity and Islam that woman are to be shunned and controlled, the natural sexual desire are to be repressed and avoided at almost all costs. While in America there is a virtual smörgåsbord of religions of almost every school of thought one can think of. The reality that many woman are either forced into or brainwashed into accepting the second class status to men is intolerable in the natural order of humanity. While it has taken several centuries for this progress to happen, it is still a work in progress. I recently went to a Christian service at Willow Creek-Chicago and the video taped message was about Ester from the Old Testament. The story told how the King banished his wife for daring to respect herself enough not to parade out in front of his people. For this "crime" she was banished. [I was surprised she wasn't killed.] But to select a new wife the ordered woman to walk before in dressed in their most beautiful clothes and one thing and other Ester was selected because she was more beautiful. To me this is nothing more than pure sexism. Plus this story is being taught Today in one of the more liberal mega churches in America. Of course the person giving the message turned the story around about how "brave" Ester was but the thing is that her and all woman were viewed merely as chattel to the wishes of the King and other men.


In Christianity, the Catholic Church praises Mary the mother of Christ but vilifies Mary Magdeline the follower of Jesus. They will not let men and women clergy marry. This can be seen as a subjugation of women in that a man is afforded power and a woman is not able to share in the power as his wife. Woman are forbidden to be priest and leaders of the church outside the office set up for them which at even the highest level an ordained priest is given a higher position than the highest ranking nun. But this oppression is not unique to Catholics.


In Protestant religions the range is wide and deep. Woman can lead, or are prohibited to lead, woman can wear anything publicly acceptable or a woman must wear a full length dress with her hair uncut and covered. A woman can speak and teach in church or she much remain silent and only learn via her sexist husband. But in all of the Christian Protestant religions men come out ahead of woman. It is true that the men will say that woman are honored and respected in church and given a place of honor and respect. But this rings in my ears as the words I have heard when asking Muslims about the status of woman in their society. It is just a different tune they sing the song too. I mentioned the Shakers before, that they were a group that didn't believe in having children, so they had to adopt or recruit people in. But woman had somewhat of an equal status in the church. But the jobs for the woman and men were very stereotypical such as men worked in shops and farmed and woman worked in the home and did the domestic chores. Despite laws against it, this prejudice still exists in business and society as well.


Then we get to Islam which also has a wide range of expression as well. I lived in St. Louis and had many friends that were Bosnian Muslim and the woman and men were very western looking. I am not sure if this is from their home culture or the desire to adapt into the St. Louis culture and fit in. Even though I was usually able to pick an Bosnian man or woman out among other because of the physical appearance the woman always dressed as the American woman did. I wish all Muslims were as these people are. I believe the world would be a much better place.


But it is not, When I was in Saudi Arabia I was treated to experience the discrimination of woman in the total culture. Sure they view it as protecting them or honoring them but who says they need any protection or even wish to have your honor if given the freewill and other options to choose from? On the public transportation buses in Saudi Arabia the front door had a picture of a woman in a burka holding a child's hand with the prohibited sign going across them. Then on the back door, the same sign without the prohibited sign. I hear of the huge mall that was built in Saudi Arabia that actually had two levels one for woman and children and one for men. I only got to talk to one woman while I was over there and she was with her brother. [I actually had to have him talk to her.] They were very polite and she seemed quite content with the idea of being under the burka and the restrictions that are placed upon her. She even reflected the views of the Saudi Cultural Information tents that were present at our location at the Khobar Towers when I was there during the Gulf War.


Oddly enough, a Saudi citizen could drive across the King Faud Causeway to Bahrain and not have near the restrictions of the home country of Islam.


I did enjoy my experience with the Saudi people and for the most part are very polite and friendly to us as we were guests in their country. Even though I was serving in the Army in the time I found it an honor to be in their country. I just had a different view than they do. It was during my talks in the white Saudi Culture tents that I got to talk to several Imams and other Muslims about their religion. They told me that Islam accepts both Judaism and Christianity. However one cannot practice them openly. But as long as they practice privately only in their home then they are not going to be persecuted. Also that if a person moved to Saudi Arabia and they were a different religion, they would not be forced to change. They may be educated about Islam to avoid making mistake or violating the laws but they could convert of their own freewill. What a tolerant place!


I did, of course, find this quite confusing but I was a devout Christian at the time myself. So who was I to say. Here I was a Christian fighting on behalf of a Muslim country, Kuwiat. King Richard would have had my head.

Coming next time:

DOES ALLAH REALLY CARE? REALLY? part twenty-seven