Dec 28, 2015

Reza Aslan Explains How Bigots Such As Sam Harris & Bill Maher Can Believe What They Believe


In my last post I asked, rhetorically, how people such as Sam Harris & Bill Maher can think America emerged from Christianity. Then I remembered that Reza Aslan provides an answer to that question in one of the last episodes of the Daily Show. So, despite me being angry at Jon Stewart for stealing my 'I Am Death The Destroyer of Worlds' thing and turning it into a joke, I have included the interview here in this post.

Notice Reza Aslan explains that people often don't know anything about their religion. They just think their culture represents their religion and start building their foundation of beliefs from there i.e. they build their beliefs on foundations of false beliefs. Both Sam Harris & Bill Maher seem to assume that Christianity made America despite the first Amendment in the Constitution being written to restrict the power of religion as is often referred to as the Separation Of Church & State. In other words, it's the Constitution that created American and it's tolerance for other beliefs and (now) lack of genocide on a mass continental scale & NOT Christianity (or any religion).


Interview: "Zealot" author and religious scholar Reza Aslan explains how religion can be more about identity and culture than actual beliefs and practices. (5:51)











As a Professor of Middle Eastern politics in college once said, the conflicts in the Middle East are geo-political and not religious in nature, i.e. it's about land and who owns it. Religion is just the way you fire people up to fight. Such as how Bush got the soldiers to kill 1.2 million Iraqi's for oil or how Sam Harris fires up his athiest cult to fight for him. The key is a passionate belief in something and not any religion itself.

Interview: Reza Aslan suggests that religious conflicts are more about a power struggle between institutions and individuals than a failing of particular religious teachings. (8:00)




Dec 27, 2015

Responses To: Ben Affleck, Sam Harris and Bill Maher Debate Radical Islam (HBO)

This is an old post I discovered where I began to answer the religious racists in our country who fail to realize that everything we have now is a gift from the Constitution and not Christianity. Clearly people like Bill Maher and Sam Harris lack this knowledge and think America (and thier psychology) somehow emerged from Christianity. 

Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT - Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death.  Such evil must be purged from Israel.  

Ephesians 6:5 - Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. 
-----------------
Background:
A surprisingly good overview by CNN: Bill Maher's Muslim problem

Weighted Muslim Population Distribution Map (different cultures of Muslims)

Distribution Of The 2 Main - And Generally Opposing - Sects of Islam

Note:  There few thousand (or hundred thousand or so) radical Muslims in a population of 1.57 billion Muslims.

The Main Discussion;


2:20 has to be my favorite moment with Bill Maher shrugging and Ben Affleck exclaiming "Jesus.
This was in response to "Islam is the mother load of bad ideas" - Listen to white guy in second video below.

2:50 "people standing up to them like Malala or...' (bunch of other studies not covered in the media as it would be the opposite of smearing which is the media's current goal)

At 4:05 the guy comes with an interesting idea that i might be inclined to agree with (the Muslim world is going through a dark age, not as bad as the Christian dark age with burning of witches and all, but a dark age nevertheless).

It's important to understand 2 things about that idea 1. He estimates it at 20% which seems fair to me. 2. Holding strange beliefs is normal for large human populations, for example;

One in four Americans think Obama may be the antichrist, survey says - Poll asking voters about conspiracy theories reveals alarming beliefs – including 37% believing global warming to be a hoax 

Quarter of Republicans Think Obama May Be the Anti-Christ

A5 6:10 the Michael Steele does get it right that the media doesnt cover important stuff making most news a sort of smear campaign (one which Bill Maher has been witnessing for years already and probably doesn't realize it yet).

7:50 Ben Afflek is right we look at Iraq etc. and think oooops we made a mistake and don't even carry out an investigation(the last part is me).

At no point did they cover economic situations of those involved. It's touched upon in the second video below.

I'm very confused where Bill Maher is getting the 90% figure on how Muslims feel about someone leaving thier religion. Oh! Nevermind. Found it. From CNN:

Maher then cited a Pew Research poll that he claimed found that 90% of Egyptians supported the death penalty for those who left Islam. I'm not sure where Maher got his numbers, but a 2013 Pew poll actually found only 64% of Egyptians supported this -- still alarmingly high, but not 90%.


Another useful extractfrom CNN:

More importantly, Egypt does not define the Muslim world. Rather, Egypt is simply one of 47 Muslim-majority nations. That same poll found that in Turkey, a nation that has almost as many Muslims as Egypt, less than 5% supported the death penalty for leaving Islam. Maher also has left out that only 13 Muslim nations have penalties for apostasy, while 34 do not.

So who truly defines Islam? To Maher, clearly it's the worst of our faith. That's something you would expect to hear from a far-right bigot, not a liberal.


Maher's remarks dismayed American Muslims across the country but won applause from all the hosts on Fox News' "The Five." When you're a progressive and a gaggle of Fox News hosts praises your views, you know something is seriously wrong.

Note: On the belief that individual Muslims should be out fighting the rhetoric of fundamentalists... first off, it's a Fox News endorsed belief (with Muslims under death threats from Christians supporting them) and secondly, individuals of any culture tend to be cowards. Only the masses are brave. Bill Maher thinks he's brave because he has free speech in a world where he can speak freely. He would turn tail like a coward if he ever had to face any real difficulties;

On Topic - Political Parties - The Democratic PartyStephen knows that when someone misbehaves, it's natural to assume that person is a Democrat.


The Beginnings of A Real Discussion On The Matter...

 


Articles (Updates): 

My theory, since college, has been that they encountered the various discrepancies between their religion & science and it broke their faith. So they have been throwing a tantrum ever since ... minds completely closed except to the most simplistic explanations. Maybe, in their minds, the hurtful lies of Santa becomes the hurtful lie of religion, with it's primary myth making aspect ignored as "irrelevant". Interestingly enough, I haven't noticed a corresponding pattern in the Muslim world. 

Bill Maher is wrong... the blaspheme law was adopted from British Law from it's colonial days (probably not to seem below the mighty British the Muslims in India-Pakistan said 'we will punish people for Blaspheme as well, see we are no less than the British') 

"...But they uttered blasphemy ... if they repent, it will be best for them, but if they turn back, Allah will punish them...."
 [Holy Qur'an 9:74] (i.e. it's not the Muslim Believers responsibility to punish blasphemers. This misconception is because of a lack of Muslim Leadership - most probably haven't read the Quran like the Christians with their Bible - Bill Maher is neither... technically he's a "Christian Atheist" from the  "Constitutional Era of Human History" as future historians will probably see it. It is not the job of a believer to do God's job for him. That a sign of pride, ego & arrogance to assume to know the will of God.)

Turns out the Blasphemy Law in Pakistan is actually a modern rendition of Ancient British Law!

When were Pakistan's blasphemy laws adopted? What fueled them?

 According to the public policy think tank Jinnah Institute, Pakistan’s blasphemy laws originated in British colonial laws drafted in 1860 to protect religious beliefs and customs.

In the 1980s, under the rule of hardline Islamist and military dictator Gen. Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, the laws were amended to include life imprisonment and the death penalty.

Zia-ul-Haq accused previous governments of leading the country away from the principles of Islam and openly stated his mission to return Pakistan to a conservative Islamist state. Zia-ul-Haq’s reign is widely viewed as the “Islamization” of Pakistan.

Critics say that soon after the blasphemy law was amended under Zia-ul-Haq, many accusers began misusing the law and exploiting Pakistan’s ineffective justice system to settle personal scores and persecute minorities.

The Jinnah Institute says nine cases of blasphemy were reported in Pakistan between 1929 and 1982. Over the past 15 years, the number of cases has reached into the thousands.



Update - Jan 16 2015:

Although I'm right about the origin of the law in the 60 year old Pakistan, turns out the blaspheme law is even older than I thought (which makes sense, given some of the saints stories I remember). It's a remnant of the medieval age, a period I haven't studied much. Dealing with this tradition has to come from within the Islamic States themselves. Just keep in mind that the main thing the Quran has to say about the other "people of the book" is that their religious texts have been corrupted... so allowing a medieval interpretation to subsume the facts is bad for Muslims - from the Quran's point of view.

Has Islam been interpreted incorrectly?
Does Islam have a problem with blasphemy? Mustafa Akyol says interpretations of the Quran that punishes blasphemy with death are purely “man-made.”


Another translation mistake (it's 72 raisins NOT 72 virgins):

The Daily Show: Fareed Zakaria says suicide bombers get 72 white raisins, not 72 virgins. (6:41):

"Hellen Keller Republicans" & Dufflepuds from Narnia... Same Thing?


The Chronicles of Narnia was written by a man by the name of C.S. Lewis who was a well known Christian fiction writer. His book about how "the Devil" operates in peoples lives called The Screwtape Letters is a well respected book of his in Christian academic circles and probably led to other successes. As with any fiction writer it's possible, and even likely, that C.S. Lewis drew his characters from a wide range of source.

One type in particular is very common in America called "Hellen Keller Republican" in private by the GOP (may be a general human thing). 



The "Helen Keller Republican" are people who basically vote against their own and their children's interests. Why? Because they are almost entirely influenced by fear which blacks any thinking ability they may have had .

This type, I think, was noticed by C.S. Lewis and portrayed in his book Chronicles of Narnia as the race of Dufflepuds. The following video clip introduces the reader to the dufflepuds of C.S.Lewis;

Video;


Notice how the 'palace' the dufflepuds fear corresponds to Federal Government in real life and Republicans will often say 'cut the Federal Government size' to win elections (no Republican has ever done such a thing once in office). The irrational fear they have of Obama, a Northern Democrat, also has to do with a non-dufflepud leader holding office with control of the army.

Now compare the above Dufflepuds to "Hellen Keller Republicans" (using the links below the image). You'll notice the similarities are incredible!

Here are some links showing how evidence is not a factor when Republicans make decisions and that's how the GOP gets the percent they do... 



Media helps too. Things wouldn't have gotten so bad without the media's help in fooling and leading the dufflepuds.

The Mystery Of The Media


Since the largest concentration of duffllepuds is in the South, Fox News is the worst of the media making the lies and cover ups by the liberal media pale in comparison to their outright lies and betrayals of the public's trust;



Fox News... Exposed?



Shellaking VS Schlonged. Rachel Helps Trump With This One But Maddow Rebels


Rachel Maddow offers an explanation for why Donald Trump used a particular word in his ongoing campaign of political correctness in the GOP (guided by the beliefs installed by the GOP & Fox News), in the following video. After which I go into something most commentators leave unanswered, i.e. WHY the right prefers Trump to any establishment or GOP candidate. Corporate Media has said, so far, that 'the right is fed up with the establishment and blame the media for the problems with the country as well' but they never say why. I outline a few of the reasons, with the help of Rachel Maddow, in part two of this post.

THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 12/22/15 - Crass remarks from Trump a signature style - Rachel Maddow reports on the latest comments from Republican front-runner Donald Trump to further coarsen political discourse in the United States, wondering about his intended meaning, and placing them in the broader context of his campaign.





Part 1

Maddow Shows Us How "Shellacking" (Obama) Is Similar To "Schlonged":

Obama says "Shellacking":




While Obama uses "Shellacking", Trump seems to use the word "Schlong";





Maddow explains it could simply be a case of mistaken pronunciation or maybe even a word Trump uses that doesn't mean what the Liberal Media wants it to mean but is more like Oba;as "Shellacked";






Part 2

Corporate Media has said, so far, that 'the right is fed up with the establishment and blame the media for the problems with the country as well' but they never say why. I outline a few of the reasons, with the help of Rachel & Maddow, in part two of this post.


The words doing the rounds in the Corporate media nowadays is 'I never killed any reporter';




I think Trump may be addressing fears reporters have. For example we know Dick Cheney had a death squad;

Juxtapositional Magic: As We Learn About The Similarities Between Dick Cheney & Vladimir Putin The Fox News Love Affair With Putin Makes More Sense (Note: the Love affair, which went on for years, has morphed recently)


AND we know that the media covered up the Iraq Oil War to a degree that doesn't make sense unless they were bought in some way (either through pay/money or fear). Either way Trump is right about the media lying. That fact that he doesn't want to kill them should encourage them to want him for President. Especially since they keep trying to help the people who already did a set up to hurt em (& the country)  more. Seriously, Corporate Media is probably become one of our biggest National Security threats... probably beginning from the days of Reagan when his Executive Decision made it legal to spy  (which is what Nixon got in trouble for, poor GOP couldn't go through that again!) and everything went downhill from there. Interestingly enough, all of the problems of the United States can be traced to one party (the GOP) to the days of Reagan & Nixon. Amazing! No wonder Fox News frames people so much, if they don't people will realize what it is they do! I'm afraid it's win or bust for the Fox News & the GOP, as their tactics over the last few years have made clear.

To be clear, here is a collection of evidential inks proving multiple major coverups of the media;

Media's Iraq War Cover-Up



So, this part is kinda weird. Maybe a little schizophrenic (especially given what she has already proven to know). Lets take a look;



Maddow is angry with Trump for getting angry at the media & and, probably, herself for telling him about the media lies and coverups. Basically, as long as she's doing well, who cares if the media kills 4000+ soldiers and millions of non-Americans (they're not really people right?)? It's none of her business. She already spoke in a serious tone with them. If they don't want to listen, who is she to rock the boat. It's not like she's a Journalist or anything. She's corporate now. Anyways, I'm getting offtrack. Here are some links with Rachel proving the corporate media lies for money;






(As long as Bush is out she doesn't really care about issues. I wonder what else she is willing to coverup/lie about and for who? Hillary?)

While Rachel will notice the media do weird coverups, Maddow has no problem with it. Somehow she has managed to convince herself that everything is normal despite it being the opposite. Not sure what's going on in Maddow's head. We need Rachel back. Too bad 9/11 turned her chicken. So, here Maddow is saying the media, which has been lying to the people for all these years, feels threatened:







While Rachel will notice the media do weird coverups, Maddow has no problem with it. Somehow she has managed to convince herself that everything is normal despite it being the opposite. Not sure what's going on in Maddow's head. We need Rachel back. Too bad 9/11 turned her chicken. I see no one got hurt in the media. Other people, not so much. At least we know who our royalty is.

I have a feeling that Liberals may only be able to function when society is functioning perfectly/normally or when things have degraded so far into war they have no choice but to pick up a ... stone/musket (?)... and start fighting. (modern liberals live in a sort of permanent mental disneyland)

More in-depth analysis of the media lying and betraying the American people with their lies and shenanigans;

The Mystery Of The Media


Dec 25, 2015

Christmas Movie: A Christmas Without Snow (1980)


A Christmas Without Snow (1980) - A divorced woman (Michael Learned) moves to a new city with her child, trying to build her life again. She joins the choir of a local church but has some personality conflicts with the choirmaster (John Houseman), a curmudgeonly old gentleman who will accept nothing but perfection from his group. As Christmas approaches the choir practices for the big show and the director pushes them all to their emotional limits.




Bernie Sanders Is Mistaken. He's Not A Socialist, He's A Capitalist & I Can Prove It.


Bernie Sanders is mistaken or he is outright lying about being a socialist ... maybe because of the negative connotations of the word capitalist? especially since the GOP likes to call it's robber baron like polices "true capitalism"? On the other hand Bernie Sanders may simply be using a European definition of socialism, meaning 'a person who helps society'' rather than it's economic definition. In other words, this whole "socialist" thing is a big misunderstanding no matter how you look at it. We can prove this by looking at his policies.

First, the definition of socialism;

Socialism by Robert Heilbroner(Article From Library of Economics)

Socialism—defined as a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production

Socialism is when the government takes over the making and distribution of stuff. ALL of Bernie Sanders policies have to do with regulating that stuff and NOT taking over the production OR distribution of that stuff.

In other words, I dare you to examine Bernie Sanders's website and find ONE policy where the mode of production is turned over to the Government. You won't because he doesn't. His polices are designed to give everyone a fair shot at the American Dream

The following post explains one of the problem's hes dealing with in his policies:

Cartoon of Basic Business Structure & Corruption Motivations With The Example Of Rupert Murdoch 

i.e. Bernie seeks to regulate capitalism while leaving the mode of production & it's distribution up to private enterprise thereby following the Constitutional goals of provide welfare for the entire nation while keeping away from tyranny. In other words, if everyone can't get a fair shot at something then the system to messed up and needs to be fixed. This happens in human societies. You simply rebuild it better, as The Declaration of Independence outlines, and continue with life. You don't remove the system altogether and leave people without a Constitution/System which is what the GOP is doing while pretending it's not. Note: The Constitution outlines our system. Blocking economic activity and development for the sake of winning elections isn't 'seeking general welfare of the community' as per the Constitution. Somehow this is missed is right wing rhetoric and the focus is on more terrorist like activities.


My Posts On Bernie Sanders Thus Far




Second, A Response To The Ayn Rand Style Derugulators;

One might respond (from the right) that 'I think any form of regulation whatsoever is socialism or communism'. Since the Constitution is a set of rules and regulations of how to structure a Government of the people, I will simply have to ignore them as anti-constitutionalists or idiots/dufflepuds. I hope my readers can do the same. But just for kicks...

A Conservative Libertarian might argue that all regulations are bad, YET in the Constitution Article 1 Section 8 has to say;

Article 1 Section 8;


The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

All of the above are basic functions of Congress and all constitute regulations that the writers of the Constitution (the Founding Fathers) EXPECTED future communities to employ in it's regulation cause that's how societies work and they knew that. The GOP establishment republicans will often argue that Government is bad or inefficient. Often by pointing out to their own administrations doings, i.e. 'Government is bad, just look what we did when we were in charge', ... but GOP politicians never answer the question of why these people are running for Government when they believe it doesn't, and more importantly, can't work because 'Government is inefficient'. A Government they run two branches of, Congress & The Supreme Court. They might as well be calling the Founding Fathers idiots by proving them wrong with thier own actions.


Related: 




For more information see the developing section on economics on my website Liberal Libertarianism.Org