I think that it is bullying to provoke someone by telling them that your religion is perfect and indisputable, and then when they do very little fact checking come back to you to tell you why they disagree-and why that opinion doesn’t work for them; then you tell them that they are attacking your culture and hurting your feelings. Bullying, not religious intolerance… you are bullying them, plain and simple.

In religious studies club today the theme of syncretism kept coming up. We spoke about the Celts, the Norse, the Grecco-Romans, and the introduction of Abrahamic-Faith members to the European continent. All of these religions took elements from each other. Some did so without even a hint of shame. Would be nice if the Abrahamic faiths today could get over their chauvinism and allow other people to have an opinion as well-contrary as that is to an authoritarian god.

“Those that deny Our revelations We will burn them in fire” -The Qu’ran 4:56.

Reading passages like this instantly reminds me of why I am a Humanist. Both Muslims and I think that we are individually right, and exclude the possibility that the other has the story correct. Muslims have a perverse anthropic epistemology where the Qu’ran can be traced for ambiguous remarks that are claimed to represent scientific truth (e.g., like claiming that phrenology’s decoding bumps on your head was early proof of modern neuro-scientific discovery), and a chauvinistic theosophy in which they demand that their god (Allah) be the unsolicited god of everyone. The reason it is Allah rather than “God,” is that linguistically you cannot engender “Allah” nor pluralize it. You can’t feminize “Allah,” you can’t make Allah more than one. Not only that, but every figure in the Abrahamic narrative is co-opted (even Jesus-who was “just another prophet” and had body double die on the cross for him).

Humanism also claims to have a vibrant worldview in which our epistemology is self-correcting, keeps up with the times, and is not so insecure that we need to carry out violence in order to preserve it. Like Mohammed, Aisha, Ali, Abu Bakr, and the other Great Caliphs; we too have celebrated figures who advanced our philosophy and worldview. However, I doubt anyone would ever get so angry as to punch someone who criticized Einstein or Richard Dawkins-and people do that all of the time.

The Muslim and Humanist traditions date back many millennia in different thought systems. They are neither original-and unlike Islam, Humanism proudly announces that it took a long time to get where we are today; not that it was dropped from the sky. Lastly, Humanism does Islam one better. Humanism has no “Last Prophet.” Humanists expect that we will come up with better things in the future.

Try Humanism, We don’t burn people.

Today I argued with someone who had claimed that Ron Paul’s freedom of speech was being infringed by the major media outlets not covering his opinions or what he is doing.

First of all, free speech is between you and your government-not you and your Faux News Contributor. I always found it funny that Fox is a “News Corporation,” it is so comical because the Spanish word for factory is “fabrica,” and Fox is truly a News Factory in that they fabricate “news”.

Secondly, corporations are not mandated to guarantee your right of free speech in their products and services. Local television stations have FCC mandates to allow a portion of programming to public views, but this is not Fox.

Thirdly, you may not have freedom of speech guarantees in corporations (which is just silly to ask for). But there is a massive wave of public disapproval of the U.S. Supreme Court granting Corporations free speech rights in FEC v. Citizens United.

In summation, you have free speech rights against your gov’t. “News” Corporations don’t owe you anything, and third, “News” Corporations now technically have the ability to garner free speech protection in federal elections. Ron Paul can say what he wants, MSNBC doesn’t have to talk about it, and MSNBC can now put unfettered sums of money into Super Pacs to influence elections to “speak” as a group of people.

Lastly, the asshole who argued with me turned his head and refused to talk to me. There is a burden to being smart, knowing where to look, having done research, and being versed in logic-argument-and critical thought.

onward and upward.

I was told today that by speaking critically about Mohammed, that I was committing libel against the prophet. Well asshole, 1., it was slander, not libel; 2., as Mohammed is a public figure slander is not a valid charge; 3., Truth is a defense. If Mohammed had sex with a minor, he had committed statutory rape. Therefore calling him a child-rapist is neither libel, slander, nor incorrect.

I find it odd that people who traffic in intolerance against gays instantly go to the argument of “you hurt my feelings!”-when you destroy them with logic. Also, why are Muslims the only ones whose feelings need to be preserved? Lastly, As someone who is an actually oppressed minority in the United States-don’t give me this shit about how your feelings get hurt. If your religion ain’t cuttin it in the 21st Century, drop it. There are scores of better ways to waste your time. For example, try smoking weed. You will feel just as good and surprisingly accomplish far more.

Fuck Islam, criticizing mental tyranny is not bigotry.

Also, if you argue with me, please don’t stick in the “Christianity is worse than Islam” bullshit. Christianity has been better and worse, but that is not saying much. They are both horrible and obsolete superstitions.

Next.