You know, maybe with some talking cucumbers or something this would be more palatable - no, I guess not. Nevermind.

Posted by: Miss Moneypenney at December 17, 2005 1:02 PM

Put me down as a "Christianity and Islam are just different strains of the same disease" type. One may be more virulent than the other, but neither can be considered healthy.

Posted by: mww at December 17, 2005 1:10 PM

Pinnochio turned into a donkey.

I always knew he wasn't Jewish!

Posted by: Shy Guy at December 17, 2005 1:20 PM

The concept of an "adult Moslem" is a non-starter. These hirsute people are to be regarded as misbehaving adolescents to be dealt with the utmost harshness.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 17, 2005 1:39 PM

I was stunned by the quality of the animation. Will Vinton, eat your heart out. (sarc off)

OT Just got back from Christmas shopping. Two more copies of the P.I.G. for some "hard to buy for" relatives. Robert, thanks for making Christmas shopping easier this year!

Posted by: Infidel33 at December 17, 2005 2:47 PM

infidel33-

Like the muslims, you are diseased and unhealthy, practicing your Christianity. Stop all that disgusting good will and reclaim your conceit while you have time!! (as per mckeegans post above)

Posted by: XRDC at December 17, 2005 3:06 PM

The continued indoctrination of Muslim young in the virulence of anti everyone is the reason why this jihad is perpetual.

Posted by: epg at December 17, 2005 3:07 PM

Put me down as a "Christianity and Islam are just different strains of the same disease" type. One may be more virulent than the other, but neither can be considered healthy.

Posted by: mww at December 17, 2005 01:10 PM

Have you had your mind checked for abnormalities lately?

Posted by: Susanp at December 17, 2005 3:21 PM

Iran is the new Nazi Germany.

Posted by: igor at December 17, 2005 3:22 PM

Some racial undertones there, too. Never mind the ancient time period in which the story was set; the two main "antagonists," in addition to their exaggerated features, were white guys. Reminds me of an old song, "Things That Make You Go 'Hmm'."

Also, there was no mixed company of men and women-- indeed, no women at all-- on the "protagonists'" side. Again: Hmm.

But now that they've appropriated Claymation to further the jihad, can anime be far behind?

Posted by: Shinoliite at December 17, 2005 3:37 PM

I don't think Wallace and Gromit have anything to worry about.

More cheese Gromit?

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at December 17, 2005 3:46 PM

If Jews were really apes, wouldn't his name be "King Kohen"?

Posted by: scaramouoche at December 17, 2005 4:06 PM

Shinoliite

I was wondering about the timeline as well. The boy mentions "grilling" fish. What kind of grills did they use in ancient times?

The farthest back I can trace the word is 1668 France.

Those pigs must've become extinct given the long snout. Maybe they were really turned into aardvarks or anteaters.

Posted by: XRDC at December 17, 2005 4:18 PM

The Al-Foreman Grill: The Lean, Mean, Halal Grilling Machine. ;)

Posted by: Shinoliite at December 17, 2005 4:24 PM

Robert, doesn't this post belong on JihadWatch instead of DhimmiWatch?

It's never too early to start training a young Jihadist, and what better than cartoons where good little Lebanese boys and girls can learn what Jews are all about (including their big, hooked noses twitch as they speak) and the fate that awaits them.

Posted by: kamala at December 17, 2005 4:24 PM

Does Islam find boneless pigs any less offensive?

http://www.bonelesspigs.org/

Posted by: kamala at December 17, 2005 4:26 PM

For anyone who thinks that the average Muslim in the middle east really loves Jews despite these stories, see the Pew survey of thousands of adults in 2005 from Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Turkey and other non-Muslim countries:

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=811

As the first chart shows, a whopping 0% of Lebanese and Jordanians have a favorable opinion of Jews.

Posted by: kamala at December 17, 2005 4:33 PM

This is just another example of the bizarre mindset of the Islamic cult. Since this is not unusual, I have a theory about Islam's origins.

Muhammed was probably afflicted with that rare combination of epilepsy and scizophrenia. As long as his educated and dominant Christian-born and much older wife Khadijah was alive, the hallucinations and voices in his head (i.e the "Angel Jibril") could be interpreted by her and so you have all the peaceful surahs such as "there is no compulsion in religion" etc.

After Khadijah died, poor Muhammed lost not only his only lover but also the only mother figure he had ever known. Thus he began to slip deeper into insanity and more and more narcissistic hallucinations. His perversions took control (the rapes, murders and pedophilia) while the earlier surahs are replaced by the ones of violence, oppression, and perversion. The natural rejection of his self-centered revelations by the people of Yathrib (remember, the Hejirah occured soon after Khadijah's death) drove him into absolute violence and a psychopathic desire for self-gratification and revenge. Unfortunately, like many narcissistic psychopaths, (compare with Stalin, Hitler, or Pol Pot)he was a very charismatic and bold personality. Thus the founding of Islam in the hallucinations of a madman and its continuing insanity 1400 years later.

Now pardon me, I've got to go outside and transform myself into a chimpanzee.

Posted by: Provoslavni at December 17, 2005 4:39 PM

Fantastic analysis, Provoslavni.

Now, does anyone else have a mysterious hankering for grilled fish?

Posted by: Shinoliite at December 17, 2005 5:22 PM

l just saw this morning a commercial on ABC about how American the American Muslims are.. from you guessed it CHAIR... l would demand before l would take them at their word, if they would state on their commercial,, the right for Israel to exist!
This anti semitism is so ingrained in the muslim psyche, that is would take generations of deprograming.

Posted by: Lulu at December 17, 2005 6:22 PM

Dhimminy Christmas!

I'll have to keep an eye out for that one.

Posted by: Shinoliite at December 17, 2005 6:27 PM

When does the Claymation story about Nuking the Jews and wiping them from the face of the Earth come out while Jihad marched to total victory and domination of all the Earth and Humanity? When you say? Coming to a theatre near us?

Posted by: x_achillesheel_x at December 17, 2005 6:37 PM

Being an agnostic i have no time for organised religion of any kind.

But when I hear about people talking to God I will never believe the one who justifies his violence for this reason. But I am willing to give the pacifist and tolerant one the benefit of the doubt here.

Islam is inherently violent and repressive and creates only stagnant societies once deprived of slaves and conquest loot.

Christianity which has been warped by man since it becam a state religion is not inherently violent and has allowed humanitarianism to evolve and this is why the 21st century is a better place for many of us. Had islam been in charge we would still be running around brandishing swords and massacring our neighbours instead of trying to help them.

The point of the Good Samaritan parable is that every one else stepped over the body. Had the samaritan been a Muslim and the injured man not one then he would have stepped over him also.

Ever wondered why the Red Cross goes everywhere but the Red Crescent only goes to arabic muslim countries?

Posted by: Zathras at December 17, 2005 8:53 PM

Zathras, you might very well feel the need for a God of some kind before this is all over.

If the moon rock Allah is not to your liking and you reject the concept of God loving hmanity so much he sent his only son to suffer and die for our sins ie. Christianity, perhaps you can make up your own religion...weekend soccer perhaps.

One thing I'm certain of...humanity on its own will fail.

Posted by: Mike_W at December 17, 2005 10:20 PM

I got flamed at LGF for saying this, but I think that because that site and Jihad Watch are so important, we should be really careful what we focus on and what we highlight.

This is a typical fundamentalist story in which all the characters, like Christian and Jewish stories from the Old Testament (if you don't know them, than you have not read it, so please read first before asking me when and where, the answer is everywhere from Genesis to the last wiritngs of the Tanach) where all the characters, sinners and saints, are Jewish. Here the "bad" Jews are turned into animals and the "good" Jews, the proto Muslims, are spared.

No doubt, just as historic Xian antisemitism used the idea that the Jews killed Jesus (even though he and all his apostles were Jews, as well as his earthly parents, there is no doubt that the pigs and apes reference, from the koran, is meant to mean Jews.

But I have read many comic books and seen videos as a kid showing me G-d destroying sinners and wiping out whole cities, even flooding the world.
The Judges and prophets were often smiting and smoting disbelievers, and even though the X-ian testament is th emost peaceful of the major monotheisms, Revelations is pretty scary too.

My point, simply, is that this is an example of fundamentalist Islam scaring its believers into believing, not so much an example of the anti-semitism which is clearly a major epidemic in the ME and something which MEMRI and Joihad Watch have been at the forefront of exposing.

Posted by: tokyobk at December 17, 2005 10:21 PM

I can only imagine what these people are trying to pass off as "clay"

Posted by: DCWatson at December 17, 2005 11:36 PM

LOL at DCWatson.

Tokyobk-- I understand your concerns with respect to the fact that Jewish and Christian traditions also portray the smiting of bad guys in various nasty ways.

But I think what makes this different is the fact that the "apes and pigs" epithet has been such a rallying cry for fundamentalist Islam against all Jews; Muslims seem all too inclined to lump all Jewish people with those who incurred the divine wrath in this story. (A recurring theme: One prominent interpretation of Sura 1 is that "those who earn Thy anger" is directed at Jews, and "those who have gone astray" is directed at Christians).

And we know Hizbollah is using this material to demonize Jews to an audience of impressionable youngsters.

For a contrasting example, we still tell the story in Exodus about the plagues visited on the Pharoah and the actions that led to them, but we don't use that account as encouragement to beat up on Egyptians.

Posted by: Shinoliite at December 18, 2005 1:46 AM

"For a contrasting example, we still tell the story in Exodus about the plagues visited on the Pharoah and the actions that led to them, but we don't use that account as encouragement to beat up on Egyptians."

Exactly and Judaism has several thousands of years of interpretation and using stories as allegory.

These days, a Jewish "Fundamentalist" is much more likely to give a Sabbath breaker a hot bowl of cholent than to stone him upside the head, and as the recipient of many such hot meals, I have to say I am grateful for that.

But, for those who see that claymation and say "ah ha, Muslims are insane and this is the proof of it," be careful as where, what about Timothy McVeigh equivilence arguments fail easily, there is indeed a body of stone the disbeliever literature in all of the monotheistic texts.

Posted by: tokyobk at December 18, 2005 1:58 AM

How asinine of these TV producers to waste their time to corrupt the young & innocent minds with such rubbish. Only the followers of Mohamed would even think of doing anything like this; in this day and age. Don't these idiots realize that the whole civilized world is laughing at them. No wonder the Mohammedan countries are the most illiterate, poverty stricken, repressive, corrupt in the whole world. What better could be expected of them

Posted by: faqi at December 18, 2005 2:25 AM

Perhaps i am out of step here, but I did not realise that being an atheist or an agnostic labelled one as being incapable of appreciating the philosophy of Christianity or any other benevolent religious philosophy.

The trouble with you believers is that you are so arrogant that you assume we lesser mortals know f***all about religion. I see ALL organised religion as simply another excuse to kill someone and most religions as an immature version of such.

However, I am a follower of Christian philosophy or more correctly the benevolent, altrustic teaching of JC without any of the supreme being garbage (see secular humanism).

I do this as it is THIS which led to humanitarianism and benevolence towards your fellow man and which made the world a better place and not any organised religion.

Because of this I support Christianity but do not ever think that I trust any organised religion.

I am also tired of seeing quotes for the Old Testament used in pro/con discussions of Christianity/Islam. It has NO relevance to Christianity other than it being JC’s original holy book and I thank Fortuna (no smart comments here plse) for that as if some Christian fundamentalists had their way we would ourselves be stoning people or smiting their heads.

Christians themselves have made this mistake for cnturies and I think it is disgusting that they still mix up JC's benevolent God with that Allah like vindictive, barbaric, violent OT god.

Naturally all IMHO

Posted by: Zathras at December 18, 2005 4:17 AM

"I am also tired of seeing quotes for the Old Testament used in pro/con discussions of Christianity/Islam. It has NO relevance to Christianity other than it being JC’s original holy book."

Actually, we see the New Testament as the fulfillment of God's promises and covenants in the Old Testament. It's said, "To Him [Jesus] all the prophets bear witness." (Acts 10:43) We wouldn't have a leg to stand on if it weren't for that; we'd truly just be pulling this Jesus guy out of the air.

Jesus himself acknowledged this in the conversation with the Samaritan woman (John 4:19-22): "Salvation is from the Jews."

For more on that, check out "Dabru Emet," a statement by Jewish scholars, including that “through Christianity hundreds of millions of people have entered into relationship with the God of Israel.”

http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_chrr.htm

(Yeah, I know. Not sure how dhimmi the rest of the site is, but they have a nice bullet-point summary of Dabru Emet.)

In a nutshell, Christians both need and revere the Hebrew scriptures.

Posted by: Shinoliite at December 18, 2005 9:16 AM

Zathras.

"The trouble with you believers is that you are so arrogant that you assume we lesser mortals know f***all about religion.

No, this believer assumes nothing and, further, can honestly say that he does not give a rat's arse what you know about religion."

"I see ALL organised religion as simply another excuse to kill someone and most religions as an immature version of such."

The astonishing stupidity displayed by this remark speaks for itself. What you call organised religion is "organised" precisely because it has many adherents.

What is it exactly about your disorganised religion (minus that "supreme being garbage, of course) that makes it so special?

"However, I am a follower of Christian philosophy or more correctly the benevolent, altrustic teaching of JC without any of the supreme being garbage (see secular humanism)."

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to where precisely "JC" - whose teachings you apparently deem worthy of following - all except that "supreme being garbage" - provides his followers with the "excuse" to kill someone?

While you are at it, perhaps you might inform me as to where in the Catholic chatecism we poor ignorant fools who consider ourselves Catholics can rreadily find the "excuse" to kill someone?

"I do this as it is THIS which led to humanitarianism and benevolence towards your fellow man and which made the world a better place and not any organised religion."

Many of the people assisted by (Mother Theresa for example)countless Catholic religious individuals and organisations, as well as those of other faiths would be no doubt be amused by your thoughts.

If you instinctively dislike anything that a lot of people identify with, or any large organisation, fair enough. I myself do not like either ketchup or McDonalds - can't stand them! But don't make it sound like you have taken some high moral road to reach that conclusion.

Tell you what, I'll leave my religion out of this site if you leave my religion out of this site - OK?

Posted by: Anthony at December 18, 2005 9:50 AM

It doesn't matter what many people think about religion as many of them actually don't. They just swallow whatever it is they are told.

The pacifist ethics of original Christianity are diamtrically opposed to that of the bloodthirsty OT God.

Jesus saw himself as a faithful rabbi but with differing views from the mainstream of Judaism and it is highly unlikely that he would have done anything other than show reverence towards his own holy book and his God and yet his teaching differ markedly.

So I totally disagree with yr interpretation of the role of the OT. Up until the crucifixion the Christians were just an eccentric Jewish sect with yet another would be prophet.

Christianity as seen by St Paul, and carried through to Constantine( I wont talk about it after that) really only started at the crucifixion, which was the point of divergence and where a new religion was born.
Paul pulled christianity totally away from mainstream judaism by the recognitionof JC as a messiah, his resurrection and by his refusal to make circumcision mandatory for christians. This meant that those christians still clinging to the OT(jesus's own family) and the judaic remnants became marginalised and eventually succumbed.

Christianity as a philosophy is based upon the ethical teachings of JC and has nothing to do with those of the OT other than the latter being a primitive and barbaric precursor. Christianity as a religion proper starts at the crucifixion and the subsequent resurrection.

There is no doubt that a lot of JC's teachings had their origins in the OT. but by the time that they emerged as mature ideas, they were vastly different and a lot more benevolent.

I fail to see totally how you can compare that bloodthirsty tyrant of the OT to the father of the "lamb of God".

But the OT God and Allah are good bedmates: equally bloodthirsty, equally demanding and equally vindictive.

Had this been the Christian God we would now be stoning, amputating and beheading with the same glee that Muslims show. If that is your idea of God then keep him. I do not have one, but if I did he would be that of JC not yr miserable OT one.

Posted by: Zathras at December 18, 2005 10:05 AM

Anthony I did not write an answer to you as i only saw your post after i had posted my last one.

Although I stick by what i say, I fully agree that this is not the place for it.

I just get so sick of people preaching to me, but it was my fault for displaying my beliefs.
I did this to show that I am against Islam for ethical reasons not religious ones.

If you wish i can answer you privately and with no rancour. But I expect not.

Posted by: Zathras at December 18, 2005 10:16 AM

You're forgetting the role of Peter and the other Apostles.

John the Baptist and Peter recognized Jesus as the Messiah before the crucifixion; for that, Peter became Jesus' successor on earth.

Later on, it was Peter who said, "In truth, I see that God shows no partiality. Rather, in
every nation whoever fears him and acts uprightly is acceptable to
him." (Acts 10:34-35) This was leading up to the baptism of the Gentile Cornelius, following a vision in which God told him, "What God has made clean, you are not to call profane." (Acts 10:15). That, of course, being the uncircumcised Gentiles.

So it wasn't just Paul. These concepts existed from the beginning of Christianity.

Posted by: Shinoliite at December 18, 2005 10:43 AM

Zathras.

Ninety nine percent of visitors to this site are opposed to islam. No doubt we all have our own reasons for our opposition. Ours may differ in some ways.

I don't mind if you display your beliefs. If you are a secular humanist, more power to you. You are obviously a thinking human being. You probably even know how to spell chatecism properly!

For what it is worth I too do not understand people on this site (Catherine springs to mind) who think that every time an earthquake hits an islamic country that God has clearly sent it from on high to counter-balance some act of bastardry committed by the sons of the prophet.

Such people (and for f**ck's sake everybody - in particular all those guys who are in love with her - I am not having a go at Catherine when I say this OK?) have a very different world view than I do.

In hindsight, I took what I considered to be your (indirect) remarks about MY beliefs being garbage far too personally and responded with childish invective and a lack of respect for you.

I apologise.

Posted by: Anthony at December 18, 2005 10:49 AM

It's a very crude pun. Y'know the saying about the old shoe polish brand, Shinola? ;)

Posted by: Shinoliite at December 18, 2005 11:22 AM

Back when Iraq first invaded Kuwait, there was a satirical song (among many such classics) about Saddam that made use of that same pun. I was 11 at the time; clearly, it stuck with me!

Posted by: Shinoliite at December 18, 2005 11:25 AM

Zathras.

Thanks mate. Much appreciated. For some reason though, I still feel like a right bastard.

I reckon that the Panzer Pope could properly be called an ally.

It is the rest of the RCC that worries me. Don't know what it is like where you come from, but in Australia, every bloody Catholic pinko "social justice" organisation seems hell-bent (pardon the pun!) on committing suicide with their ridiculous calls for tolerance and "dialogue" with the sons of the prophet.

As has been noted before on this site, some Catholic mob even showed up at the Catch-the-Fire-Ministries religious intolerance case in Victoria - to give evidence for the bloody flea-bitten mohammedans! Unbelievable!

I sure hope that the day I need a lifesaver that some bloke is on duty, because sure as hell the female Lebanese muslim lifeguards will be thrashed by the "morality police" if they even think of saving me.

That is if they can even see that I am drowning through their burkas!

Off topic, I also note that downunder, our magnificent response to the recent "race riots" includes giving about half a million dollars (that would be $500 US) to encourage the "Lebanese" to become lifeguards (I figure that they really mean Lebanese muslims) What bullshit!

Also, the MSM is doing their best to put the riots in perspective, by announcing that "white supremacists" have been caught with molotov cocktails. They have been somewhat more circumspect about identifying others who have been caught with all sorts of weapons, including petrol bombs, heading for the Sydney beaches. Bloody hypocrites!

Posted by: Anthony at December 18, 2005 11:36 AM

On songs:

Some of us old farts might recall that when the Iranians stormed the American embassy and took the hostages in 1979, that there was released a brilliant version of the Beach Boys classic "Barbar Ann" with the lyrics of the refrain changed from:

Bar bar bar bar Barbar Ann....

to:

Bomb bomb bomb bomb Bomb Iran....

Shinoliite, you would still have been just a glint in your old man's eye in those days!

Posted by: Anthony at December 18, 2005 11:44 AM

As you can all tell, I am very tired.

Posted by: Anthony at December 18, 2005 11:45 AM

"Bomb Iran" must have gotten sporadic airplay throughout the Iran-Iraq war (brings to mind the Yakity-Yak/Iran-and-Iraq tune, too), because I remember my older sister singing it at some point in the late '80s. (Yeah, my upbringing rocked.)

Then, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, I remember that "Bomb Iran" was reborn as "Bomb Iraq."

Good stuff!

Posted by: Shinoliite at December 18, 2005 11:58 AM

Faqi says "How asinine of these TV producers to waste their time to corrupt the young & innocent minds with such rubbish. Only the followers of Mohamed would even think of doing anything like this; in this day and age. Don't these idiots realize that the whole civilized world is laughing at them. No wonder the Mohammedan countries are the most illiterate, poverty stricken, repressive, corrupt in the whole world. What better could be expected of them"

The trouble is, these crazies think the whole civilized world will be theirs within 150 years, so what we think of them will become irrelevant by 2150, if demographics and political correctness in the West does its worst.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at December 18, 2005 12:07 PM

Shinoliite, Thanks for the kind words earlier. As I read this fascinating debate between you, Zathras, and Anthony, I am reminded of this quote from Alexander Solzhenitsyn:

“It was granted to me to carry away from my prison years on my bent back, which nearly broke beneath its load, this essential experience: how a human being becomes evil and how good. In the intoxication of youthful successes I had felt myself to be infallible, and I was therefore cruel. In the surfeit of power I was a murderer and an oppressor. In my most evil moments I was convinced that I was doing good, and I was well supplied with systematic arguments.

It was only when I lay there on rotting prison straw that I sensed within myself the first stirrings of good. Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor races, nor between political parties or ideologies either, but right through the middle of every human heart … and through all human hearts this line constantly shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil”

The Gulag Archipelago (1973) Trans. from the original Russian

Posted by: Provoslavni at December 18, 2005 7:11 PM

Provoslavni...a fascinating quote and although I did read all 3 volumes of the GA I am afraid that I do not remember it. But then I do not remember much of what I have read, or the sources for what I do remember:)) Or maybe I was simply tired at the time

I say fascinating as the concept of the “good man” IS fascinating.

Below is part of a much longer personal letter :

We are all taught (and presumably so are Muslims) that good and evil are very much black and white concepts and an either /or proposition.

But, I have come to the conclusion that there is no such thing in normal man (or woman). And that all of us (supreme beings excepted) live shades of grey which vary in time.

What this implies is that even the best of us are capable of the most heinous acts IF we can be convinced that it is for a better good.

Example: The EinsatzGruppen were the organised squads of between 100 and 150 men who roamed the area behind the German lines on the Eastern front killing all Jews and communists that they could find. They did this by the individual shooting of each
man, woman and child, and they maintained meticulous records.

Do not ever kid yourself that the EinsatzGruppen were made up of conscienceless, homicidal morons who killed without thought or feeling. There were some like this, but the majority were decent family men, often with very good academic
training, who realising that they had a mission in life, accepted that they had to get their hands dirty to do it for the benefit of the greater good (as they perceived it).
If you check the extremely high incidence of suicide, alcoholism, drug addiction or sudden psychotic episodes in the four EinsatzGruppen, then you can see what I mean. If they did not care this would be minimal. But the degree of contact killing often pushed them past their endurance limit.

This plus the studies on concentration camp guags shows that very decent men can quite easily do the most dreadful things once they are convinced that it is for a greater cause that benefits either all humanity or their particular brand of it. This means
that the rules of good & bad or ethics in general that we perceive to be in action are much more greyed than we could ever have imagined and that the whole concept of
the "good” man needs to be reviewed.

Taking this into account is vital if you wish to understand why I believe that you cannot trust perfectly decent people who just happen to be Muslims as IF they are convinced that they have to do something dreadful to reach a higher plane then it is quite possible that they will.

The most dangerous man in the world is not a homicidal maniac but a good man who has been indoctrinated to such a degree that he sees any means as acceptable if it enables his vision of the greater good to come closer to realisation.

Posted by: Zathras at December 19, 2005 1:20 AM

Thanks Zathras, I agree wholeheartedly. We have to be careful that we don't become manichaean and fail to see all the shades between the extremes. Communism, Islamic Jihadism and even Nazism were not accepted by the masses because the masses desired evil but because evil can be packaged to appear as a great good. By the time the evil becomes clear it has already become common i.e. "the banality of evil". All of us, religious, mystic, agnostic, humanist etc. must constantly re-assess our own motives and actions lest we fall into this trap as well.

Posted by: Provoslavni at December 19, 2005 1:29 AM

Provoslavni....that is very difficult subject....I doubt whether reason or logic will work on Muslims as there will always be some sheepslashing, camel^^%# lunatic to scream his hatred from some mosque and who will inflame the adolescent brainless unwashed into violence.

We have had them on our doorstep for 1400 years and they are just as bad now as they were then.

So, sometimes you just have to fight.

War by its very nature is short term evil for a long term good,

WW1 was a stupid unethical war but it did have good long term benefits to Europe and the USA but these good things did not flower until after the very ethical WW2.

Although I do not condone violence I am prepared to fight for my family, my nation, my rights and my life. In these cases I am prepared to do evil if necessary. In fact when i lived in Sydney I was becoming very attached to Texan law after numerous"break-ins" and after the last one where they smeared sh*t all over the baby's clean clothes, dummy, bottle etc, I was prepared to shoot them. Fortunately for all of us(including them ) we moved.

While the oil in the ME runs NO peaceful solution will be possible. By the time it runs out the demography will have given Islam an edge which it will never lose.

So I see only 2 solutions possible right now:

1) A cold fusion project a la the manhattan project with the EU and the USA cooperating( and perhaps even china and russia) to replace oil and destroy Islams wedge.
or

2) outright war.

If anyone can come up with better solutions then BMG!!

Posted by: Zathras at December 19, 2005 2:08 AM

posted by Zathras :

"the rules of good & bad or ethics in general that we perceive to be in action are much more greyed than we could ever have imagined and that the whole concept of
the "good” man needs to be reviewed."

I am deeply saddened to say that my father, who has lead a pretty dissolute life so far, said to me tonight, "There is no truth in the world, it all depends on one's viewpoint".

The perfect description of agnostic life.
Moral equivalence, political correctness...everything's ok, anything goes...just call me good for advocating moral anarchy.

Isn't the question of 'good' and 'evil' supposed to revolve around the will of God, our creator.
By definition, I guess the secular definition must differ...more about what is good for me, hedonism perhaps.

How sad that we have slipped so far from our creator we have no idea what he wants any more.

I have a feeling God is about to deliver a very telling lesson to secular humanity.

Posted by: Mike_W at December 19, 2005 2:43 AM

I was a Christian long before I became an agnostic and I have had experience of both sides of the fence? Have you? I have turned the “other cheek” for ~3 hours of torture. Have you?

You know NOTHING of agnosticism obviously as you are merely projecting your own religiously indoctrinated and hence prejudiced, views of an agnostic’s ethics onto myself and that is not right(trying to be polite and with difficulty).
I do NOT need a God to tell me what is right or wrong I have made up my own mind and, yes fortunately, it just so happens to agree with most, if not all of the teachings of JC
(God bit aside). However, apparently you do. Well I hope that is very good for you. I am not sure that everything I do is up to his standards but i do try and i do suffer as sometimes some individuals should be smacked in the face early rather than later as I often mistakenly have to do(metaphorically).

Your definition of secular “good” is both thoughtless and insulting. Hedonistic?? What rubbish!! Where do you find these ideas? Watch tower tracts?

As for God differentiating between Good and Evil, which God are we talking about?
The OT Yahweh? The Qur’anic Allah or the Christian father? Or or or etc And is your view the only correct and allowed one?

I respect other people's beliefs when i face an individual (including muslims) as i feel that often such a belief can help them in times of need. I may not agree with it at all but that is besides the point.

But I have no respect for the evangelical moralising of "superior" believers as I find that their ethical fragility is often on a par with it.
I also have no respect for people who use their religion like a battering ram to break into others rights or beliefs.

I have made considerable thought before I decided that Islam was evil and I duelled with the need for action as opposed to allowing apathy or subjugation for quite a long time. Like any sane person, I dislike war but sometimes a lesser evil is necessary.

As your views upon slippage: Well you are entitled to that but before you reply do realise that IN SPITE of current problems in the world. More people are living a better life than ever before and that is because of man’s own efforts.

I just cannot wait for your God’s “telling message” as it is about time the lazy sod got off his backside and did something useful.

? another burning bush? Or Mel Brooks lost 5 commandments??:)) Or ARMAGEDDON *trembles*.

Hope and faith are both wonderful human attributes but when it all come to the “crunch” they are both based upon ignorance as if you DO know you need neither. You don’t know, you have faith. I don’t know, I just hope.

Your turn

Pax vobiscum to you poor others.

Posted by: Zathras at December 19, 2005 4:38 AM

Zathras, hope your head wasn't spinning too quickly writing that up ...LOL :)

Hahaha !

Good to see you are still kicking and alive and full of God's spirit...there's hope for you yet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No Muslim zombie you, you might be wrong but you're not dead yet.

Posted by: Mike_W at December 19, 2005 4:45 AM

Mike what about the possibility that perhaps I am right? I would be so annoyed if I were you in that case.
Imagine standing at the pearly gates without a key. Me!!

Imagine standing up there and NO pearly gates
You

Forever is a long time.

Hell/Gehenna/Jehannum sound better by comparison.

Anyway good change of pace/sidestep as it spares us all:) Let's p*ss each other off on another topic.

Posted by: Zathras at December 19, 2005 5:35 AM

"Imagine standing at the pearly gates without a key. Me!!"

Oh, yeah right...now you're really pushing it!!!

You are the key to heaven...did I get that right?

Whatever..no matter...things will work out.

Posted by: Mike_W at December 19, 2005 5:58 AM

Nope missed again...remember i am the agnostic and i cannot get in as i doubt, ie i lack ze necessary faith key to open ze lock.

If I did in, would i get just one virgin for having my mind martyred here. Plse i am not greedy honest!!
and no transexuals or hermaphrodites either.
Oh that's right God dont like em so i'm safe

Sometimes.......ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!

Posted by: Zathras at December 19, 2005 6:07 AM

Nope, you wouldn't even get one virgin.

Try to imagine there is another level of reality in human understanding of the spiritual world.

Imagine there is a mirror of our world at the subatomic level, for example.

Imagine that when we die..this world..beyond our ken...kicks in and delivers to eternity the truth of each and every life on earth.

Like a CD of every life, and much more.

If there is a GOD, then this is child's play.
There is a GOD.

Posted by: Mike_W at December 19, 2005 6:27 AM

I have no doubt that you believe it and I can respect your belief as it does seem good for you and I would be the last one to challenge your right to such a belief

But where is your humility in the recognition of another's beliefs?

Or is it all just one way traffic?

Like in Islam

Posted by: Zathras at December 19, 2005 6:50 AM

I am the most wretched man alive.
I am a most unworthy sinner.
I do not deserve the graces from God I receive each day.
I deserve eternal damnation.

God saw my wretchedness and sent his only Son to ease my plight.
God's only Son, sacrificed himself for my sins and the sins of all humanity.
Oh, what a precious currency is God's love made.

Posted by: Mike_W at December 19, 2005 6:58 AM

Arise my son and respect me.

You are forgiven.

PIA yes but sinner? No not really

Blessings be upon you etc

2000 Hail Marys and 10$ in the plate plse
and be NICE to agnostics for one whole week
or I will turn you into a pillar of salt

Yrs Truly

God

Posted by: Zathras at December 19, 2005 7:23 AM

Here is a perfect example of Islamic brainwashing in full swing. Not pretty. But isn't this what mosques are for???

Truly breathtaking in its wanton and absolute disrepect for human life, disrespect for the value of individuality in humanity, and the emotional make up of human beings, isn't it?

This is without a doubt human malignance at its zenith.

Perhaps what needs to happen is for non-muslims around the world to apply this same strategy on these Islamic imams. If Islam uses this approach to exterminate non-Muslims possibly the same tack can be used to successfully exterminate Islam.

Posted by: pythagoras at December 19, 2005 2:39 PM

Anthony, the correct spelling is catechism.

Just sayin'.

Posted by: Cato the Elder at December 19, 2005 5:47 PM

This is still a fascinating exchange, even if its gone way off topic. Extremism in Religion or atheism can lead to mass bloodshed. Look how many died during the anti-religious persecutions of atheistic Communism. Non-athiestic militant secularism can also result in the same extremism (i.e. the "Terror" during the French Revolution. Since militant secularism and militant atheism are also dependent on faith.

On the other hand, people of Faith (like myself) must costantly be on guard against any self-righteousness that push our militancy over the edge. It is good that most religions (Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism) share most of the same moral precepts.

While agnostics may not share these precepts (at least as a moral absolute), the idea of "militant agnosticism" seems to be an oxymoron. My only offer to agnostic or moderate athiests is: If you are right and there is no God, I lose nothing by having had my faith and have still gained a moral grounding from my non-existant God. On the other hand, if there is a God, and you've spent your life denying Him, then what might you have lost?

If Mother Teresa, Saint Francis, the Dalai Lama, and all others driven to such goodness by religion are suffering from a universal delusion, then I think humanity needs more deluded people.

Ask yourself if you can find such true servants of humanity ever being produced by the empty ideologies of Communism, Nazism or Islam?

Posted by: Provoslavni at December 19, 2005 7:41 PM

Provoslavni…this is a massive area and I have written on it elsewhere (not online unfortunately). From this viewpoint, you have made a mistake that is almost always made by believers.
The one advantage I have as non-believer is the ability to step outside of it all(God and religion) and just observe. I will try and put it in as simplistic a form as I can for the sake of brevity and, hopefully, clarity.

Once a religion become organised, it is IS political and often God plays no part in these politics, although he is mentioned often, and hence there is NO difference between the politics of a political party and the politics of an organised religion, especially if the latter has theocracy on its agenda.

The difference between the two is only extreme if you look superficially at them; a pure political party promises a heaven on earth for all who follow it with ..say Lenin or Hitler as the icon while an organised religion promises a heaven in the afterlife with God as the icon. In both cases the believers are taught that they must suffer for the ultimate good. I am aware of interrogations of both political and religious fanatics. In both cases they are willing to die for their beliefs. The religious ones die knowing that heaven awaits them. The political ones die knowing that their family/party is one step closer to the heaven on earth.

Organised religions have power over their flock and they have money. The presence of these two items often draws the wrong people into them. People who have personal agendas, be they personal wealth or personal power or both. These people often twist the political agenda of a church to suit themselves and they often and surreptitiously twist the doctrine to accommodate their own ambitions. You only have to look at the pre and post Constantine Christian church to see that blatantly in action.

So while I see personal religion as a mostly beneficial effect upon mankind, I also see organised religion as often just another “communist party” with its own agenda, its own ideals, its own idea of what is right or wrong and an evangelical need to shove it down someone else’s throat.

As a teenager I met the local Communist party evangelist, who tried very unsuccessfully to recruit me into the fold. He was unsuccessful because by then I had become very aware and suspicious of the effects of religious indoctrination and religious evangelism, and he did not seem that much different in either his angle of approach or his arguments.

Now remember this has nothing to do with the superficial trappings of a personal religious belief. Ultimately all belief is personal. I see nothing wrong with believing in a supreme being if that is your need or your want. I actually like religious (western that is) music and have a collection as it does inspire some people to better things and the music demonstrates this. But remember political zeal has often matched religious zeal in history (I cannot say that I like much of the approved Stalinist music of the 30s).

However, all too often, this belief in a God can be accompanied by a mindset which finds all other possibilities either threatening, or heretical or obscene. If we all had just personal beliefs this would not matter. But when organised religion is present we often have a “Them & Us” situation and this can lead to any form of conflict: verbal, violent or simply blatant dislike. Religion is full of this sort of conflict and it always will be simmering just beneath the surface when followers of different organised religions are mixed. Similarly political parties, where the difference is almost nonexistent

My view of Islam is coloured by this totally: I see Islam as a dictatorial political system first and foremost. I see the invocation of a God as a convenience to further Muhammad’s dreams of first revenge and then conquest. I find all of the versions of Muhammad’s early life to be much sanctified (see heavily censored), with the mere presence of minor contradictions only allowed to hint at what may have been the truth. I find Allah’s predictions and his general comments far too convenient for Muhammad’s ongoing problems for my like and I can go on and on here.

Once you remove the religious trappings from Islam you really it for what it truly is and always has been: a dictatorial political system run by a man who has been dead for 1450 years and who was cunning enough to create and invoke a God who was as bloodthirsty and pernicious as he was, to justify his actions and to use as both a carrot and a stick to keep his own people in line.
The use of religion here has finally solved the greatest problem of the dictator: how to ensure succession without diluting the doctrinal ideals. Hitler was well aware of this and Nazism was heading towards a religion and Hitler a potential apotheosis had the Nazis won. Do not laugh at this latter. Most people today have no idea of just how closely run was WW2. With a bit of luck the Nazis could have won. It was very close I can assure you.

Why is Islam so stagnantly repressive and intolerant of other religions and others full stop?
Because all liars have the conviction that openness and free thought will create minds that can see the cracks in the edifice of lies and ask embarrassing questions and perhaps wake the mesmerized masses up at last.

No Muslim can truly know the truth as he is both afraid of it and so is his “religion”. That is why they lie so much TRUTH APPALLS them. That is, if they are aware of it and their “religion” does its best to ensue that they do not.

As I consider Muhammad a liar and Allah as a false God, what about other religions: Christianity and Judaism etc.

Christianity, despite the depredations of the RCC and many others is inherently pacifist and has ultimately a peaceful message for mankind. I don’t know and I don’t care if JC’s God exists or not, as JC’s message is enough for me. The presence of a contaminating group of quasifundamentalists who constantly quote from either Revelations or the OT is simply akin to walking across a paddock: there is always the chance of stepping in some bullsh*t and you can do nothing about it so long as they are not violent.

Judaism, despite having a fairly nasty OT God in Yahweh, and still be hampered by the lunatic fringe Orthodox adherents has also shown its benevolence and its desire to get along with the rest of humanity. Personally the persecutions of Jews since the crucifixion and certainly after the Diaspora up until the Holocaust will always allow me to give them massive benefit of the doubt but I have seen no evidence that they even need this and I have watched Israel very carefully since a child (Israel is the ONLY conquering power in history, to give conquered lands back for what is certainly only a temporary peace).

I am no expert on religions, but I do not see any evidence for most of the others being violent and while I am aware of antichristian sentiment in India I do not see any hijackings or Hindu suicide bombers hitting the west( I do believe that the Tamil tiger suicide bombers in Sri Lanka were Hindu .Is that correct? But that is a highly complex politico-racial situation)

ONE further point and based upon your comments on the origins of Islamic music. It is from another letter I wrote some time ago and for your interest

“The Byzantine Empire was the most enlightened area at the time of the Dark ages and was far in advance of the Caliphate in almost all areas and once conquered was totally absorbed by it. Their success is always based upon the parasitic absorption and assimilation of all cultures that they conquer. This is not unique to Islam but what is unique is that there is NOTHING in return, nor any credit given even to the source. Look at the classical Islamic architecture that we all know. Then look at Moscow. But the Muslims never conquered Moscow. At a simplistic view, Islamic architecture is essentially nothing else other than Byzantine architecture with arabesque scrollwork. This architectural style was absorbed and islamised, as was probably most of the science. The very cannons used to destroy the walls of Constantinople were designed and produced by captive engineers. Islam has always been very quick to use the enemy against himself as all Muslims have contempt for recent converts (let alone nonMuslims) as they say: "how can they possibly understand it unless they were born to it". Hence they are quite happy to waste them before real Muslims and the history of the janissaries verifies this.”

All Good men are good men whether they believe in a God or not

Posted by: Zathras at December 20, 2005 12:15 AM

Prov..2 brief addendas

1)Even when defeated(1683 til now) the yoke of religion kept the Muslims pure and maintained their doctrine. This is a tremendous political achievement!!! However because it was by a paranoid, delusional, paedophilc dictator it has allowed the noxious weed of Islam to fester uncivilsed in the fertile modern world and we will finish with an abscess which could destroy the western world as we know it, and perhaps even man(as we need western technology to survive)

2)All Good men are good men whether they believe in a God or not.

I do not accept that religious good men are only such because God told them to be so as to do so, is to equally justify the evil committed in a God's name

Posted by: Zathras at December 20, 2005 12:34 AM

Zathras,

It is true that much bloodshed has been committed in the name of religion (and in the name of stamping out religion). Of course, I disagree with you about certain historical facts about the RCC but I won't quibble here.

I do believe that the human personality is inherently religious if not necessarily theistic. Buddhism is an organized religion but has very little to say about theology, instead focusing more as a psychology.

Jainism is an organized religion that is completely non-theistic. It's hard to even classify Confucianism as a religion at all.

As for the theistic religions (poly or mono) there is great diversity even among the most orthodox of their adherents.

Most schools of Hinduism are actually monistic in substance while only polythiestic in form.

Despite its violent insistence on radical monotheism, Islam actually fails in this regard because the Quranic Allah, although affirmed to be "merciful and compassionate" is incapable of a true relationship with us mortals.

Judaism is a truly monotheistic religion (and probably Sikhism as well) because it upholds the mutual relationship between Creator and creature striving to correctly maintain that relationship.

Christianity, by the doctrine of the Trinity is, in my view, the only successful bridging of the reality of oneness and the need for community and love within the Divine. That is why, while respecting other traditions, I must always remain a Christian and affirm its Truth.

As for athiests and secular humanists, I see two very different kinds which have little in common with each other. The first is the kind of atheist who proclaims his atheism as an act of faith. Often they were converted to atheism in the same way as others are converted to a religious faith. The Marxists/Communists are generally in this category.

The other kind of non-theist is one who is an unbeliever because he sees no proof of the necessity of God. Nevertheless, he maintains a level of morality and compassion equal to most believers and with this type I can find much common ground. It is clear, that you are in this category.

With a person of true faith, honest discussions and debates are possible. With a person of a closed blind faith, whether in atheism, Islam, or his own narrow religious constructs, no understanding is possible.

So I'll agree with you about the definition of good men by quoting Jesus "By their fruits you will know them"

Posted by: Provoslavni at December 20, 2005 2:51 AM

Provoslavni

I agree with almost all of your points (the RCC we can ignore here) and perhaps even with your categorisation of myself, although I quite like the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient supreme being along with his accessories(heaven angels...even virgins:))) but I am afraid that we are so arrogant that we feel we deserve a second bite of the cherry, and that it is this very feeling that we are all something special and so have a right to more(plus the inherent fear of death) that propels religion and hence the need for such a god. You see you don't really need one, as with these 2 motivations driving us we would have invented one anyway.

I was not happy that you totally ignored my comments about organised relgion and politics but as a believer I can see that this would be difficlt for you to admit or even see so I am not really that annoyed. Thank you for the comments

Posted by: Zathras at December 20, 2005 4:04 AM

Thanks Zathras,

As you can see from the time I posted, I was an insomniac when I wrote you.

Actually, I didn't ignore those comments since non-theist religions are also organized. In fact, a degree of organization in necessary for it to even be considered a "Religion" at all.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines religion as:
1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : Conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
--

Clearly the very basis of any religion includes institutionalization, practices, a degree of conformity, and a system. Otherwise it would be simply a matter of personal beliefs or isolated individual faith.

As one who believes deeply that humans are social creatures, I recognize that organizing our beliefs must be more than a solitary or mental activity.

Since, we are mortals and not gods, each of us is flawed and we cannot solve our moral conflicts in isolation (this is where, in Christianity, the recognition of sin and the need for grace comes in) and so some form of organized moralizing structure, whether religious, anti-religious or secular, will always be in existence.

It is not the fact of religion is organized, but that organized religion suffers from the same human failings as any other institutions.

A scary thought is that the beduins and Arab raiders in the deserts of Darfur are almost anarchic in their structure but still display the same totalitarian mindsets as any other muslim jihadists.

Posted by: Provoslavni at December 20, 2005 3:17 PM

I do disagree with the MW definitions. That you have posted.
How do I dare so?
Because they are fallibly human like most of us and although oft quoted are not necessarily correct.
In many ways, the MW definition seems a cobbled one where disparate sources are loosely tied together for the sake of completeness, but without any true organisation.

I prefer the Wikipedia one which I have not altered as it fits in quite well with my own perspective:
Religion —sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system—is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine; and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions and rituals associated with such belief.
In its broadest sense some have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe. In the course of the development of religion, it has taken many forms in various cultures and individuals.
Occasionally, the word "religion" is used to designate what should be more properly described as "organized religion" – that is, an organization of people supporting the exercise of some religion, often taking the form of a legal entity (see religion-supporting organization). There are many different religions in the world today.

>>Clearly the very basis of any religion includes institutionalization, practices, a >>degree of conformity, and a system. Otherwise it would be simply a matter of >>personal beliefs or isolated individual faith.

I disagree totally ask 100 members of an organized religion who are NOT brainwashed (= totally indoctrinated) a single but complex question about their faith and you will get 100 mostly different answers (I have done this)

>>As one who believes deeply that humans are social creatures, I recognize that >>organizing our beliefs must be more than a solitary or mental activity.

I do NOT disagree with the fact that most human beings are social creatures but to include this as pretext to pull in organized religion is a sophism here.

>>Since, we are mortals and not gods, each of us is flawed and we cannot solve
>>our moral conflicts in isolation (this is where, in Christianity, the recognition
>>of sin and the need for grace comes in) and so some form of organized >>moralizing structure, whether religious, anti-religious or secular, will always
>>be in existence.

Your point about ethics/morality only existing in a social world is WRONG. That implies that we are not complete beings without others. Certainly its common manifestations need others to be noticed but the inner core or spiritual origin of these ethics comes from within oneself

Also, isolated groups of humans have solved their problems differently. A person alone in this world will develop a behavioural pattern to say, animals, based upon his own ethics. If a decent person he will try to kill quickly and as painlessly as possible needed animals, if not it won’t matter how he kills them and in fact he may do so slowly for sport. So, to say that religion as a defined as a faith is purely based upon one’s interaction with other humans is not so as there you only have its manifestations.

>>It is not the fact of religion is organized, but that organized religion suffers >>from the same human failings as any other institutions.

Oh I quite agree but as most organized religions claim moral superiority and always, they are expected by all to do a little better than most and they fail miserably although more especially in the past. As I said above, once you have an organized religion, the adulteration of its doctrinal purity starts immediately as the success of this “church” gives it power and wealth and these attract the wrong people. In the past this was one CERTAIN way to wealth and power; nowadays it is less common as there are far better way to achieve both.

>>A scary thought is that the Bedouins and Arab raiders in the deserts of Darfur >>are almost anarchic in their structure but still display the same totalitarian >>mindsets as any other Muslim jihadists.

The unnecessary cruelty that these have shown in the past and their propensity for treachery and backstabbing has permeated the core of Islam and even if they are not fanatical adherents will still show this.

Anyway my thesis is still sound: organized religion has both political power and political aims. These are often the result of doctrinal purity but can become so overwhelming that they adulterate doctrine. A very large organized religion has massive wealth and huge power over its flock and both of these are the mainstay of political power.

So:

Religion = personalised belief system with morals and often faith;

Organized religion = an organised group with the same religion in common
who gain wealth and power as their numbers grow
= nascent politics.

Very large organized religions = blatant politics

Posted by: Zathras at December 21, 2005 5:09 AM