Greatest I Am's anti-religion thread

[Greatest I am]

I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

Some Muslims follow an ideology, as written in their religious writing, which allows slavery of Muslim women. This sect of Islam allows the sale of child brides to others within their cult. These people want a Caliphate that promotes and uses slavery.

The Muslim men in this slave holding cult have submitted to Allah and are eager slaves to him thanks to the pleasant heavenly gifts he promises. They believe themselves to be favored by God and hate all those who are not.

History of religion, especially Christianity, shows that when a belief is strong, even if miss-guided, ends all compromise within the believer. Thus is born Inquisitions, Jihads, Honor killing and murder of non-believers and apostates.

The assumptions that these people make of God, without any proof and based on the supernatural and the writings of imperfect men, become so arrogant, that they act as slave traders based on their beliefs without regard for moral and ethical standards. They in fact break their own reciprocity rules.

These Muslims allow this theological certainty to create a tyrannical cult of slaved men who then make second class slaves out of their female children. Naming these Muslim women and girl’s chattel would be an understatement. They are truly slaves, as Allah demands.

These Muslims imitate their slave holding master, Allah, and like all tyrants, hate all others not of their ilk. They allow their hate to push them to violence against the free people in the free world.

Islamophobia is a fear of Islam. Those who do not fear and hate this slave holding cult of Islam, along with the other inhuman and immoral policies that Islam and Sharia allow, are not moral people. Moral people will fight against slavery.

I fear that free people will not be Islamophobic enough, because of their fear of being labelled racist or Islamophobe, to rise up and give secours to the unwilling female slave of Islam.

I am proudly an Islamophobe. If you are not you might not be a moral person.

Are you a moral person?

Regards
DL

 

[billvon]

I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

That is a good thing. If you thought I was a moral person I'd be worried. It would be like Trump thinking I was an upstanding citizen, or Ken Lay thinking I was a good businessman, or Bernie Madoff complimenting me on my investing strategy.

 

[arfa brane]

Why Islam? Why single out one religion?

What's different about it, what does it urge its followers to do that say, Christianity doesn't?
And why does the existence of this one Islamic sect you talk about mean Islam should be feared? Should I not be afraid of Christian sects who want my children to learn about creationism, or how it's ok to have as many wives as you like?

 

[spidergoat]

I think Islam is only marginally more stupid than other religions. I don't fear them or hate Muslims, but I do recognize the need for reform, and the best way to do that is to encourage their assimilation into secular society, something that is not helped by Islamophobia.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Phobia is an extreme or irrational fear. Being afraid of something for good reason is not phobia.
As hinted at in the OP, Christianity has been at least as bad as it seems Islam is & easily could be again.

<>

 

[Seattle]

Islam is no more of a problem than Christianity. Dictators and terrorists are problems. The religion is no relevant.

Islam has become associated with "terrorism" only in recent years. Yet it has been around for centuries.

We recognize the real problem when we look at N. Korea but we misdiagnose the problem when you look at Iran. It's the same problem however.

 

[Bells]

I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

As Billvon so aptly argued, if not being a bigot makes me not a moral person, then I am fine in not being a moral person.

Some Muslims follow an ideology, as written in their religious writing, which allows slavery of Muslim women. This sect of Islam allows the sale of child brides to others within their cult. These people want a Caliphate that promotes and uses slavery.

The same could be argued for most religions. I mean, if your anger is at the notion of child brides, for example, then why aren't you railing against some Christian homeschoolers who are advocating it to their children as a part of their education?

In the dark and sometimes dangerous world of Christian homeschoolers, children are treated as property, often with tragic consequence.

A recent Facebook discussion illuminates some of the dangers the daughters of Christian homeschoolers face, dangers like arranged marriages, often at a very young age.

In a post to his Facebook page, Michael Farris, Chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, issued a statement expressing concern about “a very serious problem” that he sees “surfacing in Christian and conservative circles.”

The problem: the “minimum age for marriage” and the prospect of parental sanctioned child marriage.

In his statement, Farris expressed concern about what he called “a growing tendency in the Christian and conservative movement to be seduced by a spirit of anarchy” as it relates to laws prohibiting child marriage and protecting children. Farris writes:

The way we test the propriety of a proposed legal rule is to take the rule to its extreme and see how we like the results. So I asked whether a parent should be permitted to give their permission to allow a 7 year old to be married to a 30 year old pedophile. The legal issue is the same whether or not there is a “dowry” (cash payment) offered by the “bridegroom.”

Though they are exceedingly rare, there are parents who would permit this kind of outrageous transaction. Such a plan is inherently evil and should be punished.​

[...]​

There can be no doubt that the Christian homeschool movement is built, in part, on the notion that parental rights trump the rights of children, and that parental rights should trump the right of the state to protect children from abusive parents. Sometimes that extreme view of parental rights translates into the attempted normalization of child marriage.

Writing at Love, Joy, Feminism, Libby Anne has done a great job exposing many of the problems associated with Christian homeschoolers, including child marriage. Writing about Michael Farris warning Christian homeschoolers about the dangers of promoting child marriage, Libby Anne briefly describes a popular stance in Christian homeschooling circles as embodied by a couple of popular conservative Christian homeschool advocates:

Maranatha Chapman married a much-older man at age 15, and the story of her courtship and wedding was told and retold as a model and aspiration in Christian homeschooling circles in the 1990s. In 2008, Maranatha’s daughter, Lauren, also married a much-older man. She had just turned 16.

The Chapmans don’t just practice child marriage, they also preach it, encouraging other homeschooling parents to follow their lead, even arguing that “a difference in age—even a significant one—with the man being older, helps make for a better fit.”​

In another post, Libby Anne quotes from an article written by Matthew Chapman, a Christian homeschooling advocate who was 26 when he first expressed interest in his then 13 year-old-bride to be Maranatha Chapman. At 27, Matthew, asked Maranatha’s father for his permission to marry his 14-year-old daughter. The father agreed, and the couple was married when Maranatha was 15 and Matthew was 28.

[...]

Earlier this year, in yet another tale of horror from the Christian homeschool movement, a young woman explained how she narrowly escaped child marriage after being sold by her family for $25,000 into an arranged marriage to a man twice her age.​

Any religious ideology or even non-religious culture that promotes the very notion of purity or enshrines a culture of female purity in particular, of virginity, not to mention ownership, will run the risk of having this sort of thing happen.
Parts of Asia, for example, it isn't unheard of to have a child married to a much older man.

The Muslim men in this slave holding cult have submitted to Allah and are eager slaves to him thanks to the pleasant heavenly gifts he promises. They believe themselves to be favored by God and hate all those who are not.

Doesn't this apply to all religions as well? The goal of resting eternally in heaven as a reward of some sort?

The assumptions that these people make of God, without any proof and based on the supernatural and the writings of imperfect men, become so arrogant, that they act as slave traders based on their beliefs without regard for moral and ethical standards. They in fact break their own reciprocity rules.

Again, doesn't this apply to any religious ideology? I mean, hell, look at Catholics, where men and women marry the Church, in the case of nuns, marry Christ and promise to lead a life devoted solely to a religious figure, and some are denied access to the outside world and are literally locked away in convents, denied access to their families in some instances. The Church itself has fostered and protected paedophiles with an arrogance that is repulsively breathtaking.

Belief can corrupt and ideology can corrupt and arrogance because of one's faith is just one phase of that corruption.

To wit, it isn't solely relegated to Islam, or to any religion. Power corrupts, politics corrupts.

These Muslims imitate their slave holding master, Allah, and like all tyrants, hate all others not of their ilk. They allow their hate to push them to violence against the free people in the free world.

Considering just how many Muslims the West has killed in various wars, that's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Islamophobia is a fear of Islam. Those who do not fear and hate this slave holding cult of Islam, along with the other inhuman and immoral policies that Islam and Sharia allow, are not moral people. Moral people will fight against slavery.

Moral people don't just single one religion out and fear and hate them because of that religion. If you wish to tackle modern day slavery, then you tackle the problem. Focusing solely on one religion will not end this kind of slavery. Blaming Muslims for what some do and fearing and hating them all is not going to end slavery. It is Muslims who end up being the victims of this first and foremost, remember? ISIS, for example, have killed more Muslims than Westerners and the same applies with other such groups. It is Muslim girls who are the victims of child brides when it occurs in that religion, just as it is Christian girls who are the victims of child brides, when they are forced into these marriages.

You want to tackle slavery and end child brides? Then start respecting women, all women, including Muslim women. By fearing Islam, you show a disrespect to Muslim women and girls, the victims of these crimes.. You are labeling them as lacking in morals, as being worthy of being hated and feared because they are Muslims. As such, those women and girls have no recourse, if your response to their plight (and that of other religions and cultures) is to hate them.

I fear that free people will not be Islamophobic enough, because of their fear of being labelled racist or Islamophobe, to rise up and give secours to the unwilling female slave of Islam.

How can you say you think people should rise and help these victims, if you also promote hating and fearing them? I mean, how does that work, exactly? Aren't you just becoming a part of the problem they already face? That of being disrespected and hated and not viewed as equals, if you think that more people should hate the religion and those who belong to said religion, ie, if you argue that more should become Islamaphobes?

I am proudly an Islamophobe. If you are not you might not be a moral person.

Then you are simply ensuring more victims by being a part of the problem of hatred and disrespect.

And you think that makes you moral?

 

[Ted Grant II]

Some Muslims follow an ideology, as written in their religious writing, which allows slavery of Muslim women. This sect of Islam allows the sale of child brides to others within their cult. These people want a Caliphate that promotes and uses slavery.

I don't think all Muslims follow all the tenets of Islam, certainly not in the USA, but I think you are correct for Islamic Theocracies.
Given the unpleasant nature of the restrictive rules and readily available access to knowledge of more appealing alternative systems, it is difficult to understand why people tolerate their tyrants.

Of course, Islam is a relatively young religion. Christianity, being much older, has been tempered by social and scientific progress.
The severe Roman Catholic authorities had a shock, 500 years ago when Martin Luther kicked off and created a slippery slope.
I am expecting huge celebrations, later this year (2017) to mark the 500th anniversary of of his remarkable bravery.
Arguably, he was the father of Western modernity.

 

[birch]

https://www.jksheindlin.com/film

well, realistically islam is a dangerous ideology or religion, whatever you want to call it. if you think the religious wars in the middle east are not okay, then it shouldn't be allowed in your country but eventually if it gains too much power and permissiveness, it will end up violent or oppressive. that is because islam is not a tolerant religion just like christianity. they are both fundamental religions.

this is one of the biggest hurdles that society has yet to overcome and that is allowing unethical ideology because it is under 'religion'. islam condones pedophilia, rape, sexism, slavery, oppression, murder etc. why would you allow the bullshit of people saying they follow/believe in a religion but they are not 'like that'. what does that mean? it is a lie, irresponsible or something is not adding up.

if you examine the ideology of the koran you notice it is to promote patriarchy and power. it has nothing to do with god. the concept of god is used to promote self-serving agendas for self-centered men. that's all it was and is. the stupidity is when people believe this shit is the word of god or they use it against others to get their way.

why should this be allowed if it's against your laws? it should be openly called out on it for what it is and that religion is not an excuse to justify basically a particular man's sociopathic ideas (mohammed) of how society should be.

i agree with his point. why would you want to emigrate to a country where the ideology and laws are the opposite of what your religion-based culture stands for? if it oppressed you, then you should renounce it, not spread that to other places. what gives you even a moral right to even to do such a thing? do people want to move to the middle east where honor killings and mutilation of women and arranged child marriages and rape is legal? most don't. so why would muslims want to emigrate to other countries unless they are seeking asylum and refuge away from such oppression? if they really aren't and continue to want to practice and spread such dangerous ideology, then they are a threat to the culture and ethics of that society.

 

[billvon]

The same could be argued for most religions. I mean, if your anger is at the notion of child brides, for example, then why aren't you railing against some Christian homeschoolers who are advocating it to their children as a part of their education?

Oh, I am sure he will. All religions other than his are horrible, according to him. (Which makes him a lot like some Islamic extremists, actually.)

 

[Yazata]

I am an Islamophobe.

There are some varieties of Islamic theology that I viscerally dislike (and fear when I feel that they are threatening things I value). Others not so much.

The first category would include most of the highly legalistic forms of the religion, the emphasis on shariah, the idea that all Muslims must be shariah compliant, and the idea that God has commanded Islam to subject the entire world to God's revealed Will. Unfortunately, these kind of theologies are sweeping through the Islamic world these days (some places more than others) in a huge salafist revival that seems to be driving the more personal, mystical and modernist varieties of the religion out of existence.

The second more benign group would include those Muslims who treat their religion as a personal religion of opening up one's self to the divine as opposed to enforcement of a mandatory God-commanded social-order applicable to everyone. I should say that some of the most 'spiritual' people that I've ever met were Muslim Sufis of the more mystical sort. I greatly respect their religiosity.

I fear that free people will not be Islamophobic enough, because of their fear of being labelled racist or Islamophobe

The danger that I see is that there are many aspects of contemporary Islamic theology that deserve criticism and opposition. But in today's social climate, any criticism of Islam or Muslims is defined as 'hate'. So what we have in the West is easily exploitable enforced stupidity, that might ultimately result in the suicide of Western civilization itself.

Countries in Western Europe, with the best of motives, for a generation have granted asylum to individuals who faced persecution in their home countries. But the Europeans never inquired into why those foreigners were being persecuted. Which led to a huge influx of the most extreme radical Islamist mullahs who faced arrest by secular Arab governments. That in turn led to mosques in places like London becoming worldwide foci for the worst sort of radical Islam.

I am proudly an Islamophobe. If you are not you might not be a moral person.

I wouldn't call myself an 'Islamophobe', there's no reason for a thoughtful and moral person to willingly step into that kind of caricature.

But there are definitely aspects of some Islamic theologies that I viscerally dislike and oppose. As I suggested up above, that includes the idea that Islamic law and the sensibility that it embodies, come direct from God himself, are unchangeable for all time, and are mandatory for all of humanity. Accepting that would be to reject the history of Western civilization from the Renaissance through the Scientific Revolution to the Enlightenment, and would turn back the clock in our own countries to the cultural sensibilities prevalent among crude desert nomads in the darkest years of the dark ages.

 

[DrKrettin]

Of course, Islam is a relatively young religion. Christianity, being much older, has been tempered by social and scientific progress.
The severe Roman Catholic authorities had a shock, 500 years ago when Martin Luther kicked off and created a slippery slope.
I am expecting huge celebrations, later this year (2017) to mark the 500th anniversary of of his remarkable bravery.
Arguably, he was the father of Western modernity.

And arguably he was the father of an ignorant and backward movement. At least the Catholic church accepts scientific findings such as the age of the earth, and does not regress into some idiotic and childish literal reading of the bible.

 

[The God]

I am not any religion phobe but, let's see..

I read a news article that a Muslim man before going abroad for some work, glued yes glued the genitals of his wife, why? Because she liked a pic of a boy cousin (Age 12) of hers and husband (The Vagina Gluer) thought (or felt threatened) that she might be having, you know what, adulterous ideas about that 12ish boy.

The story does not end here...

Somehow (I don't know how) the matter goes to the court. The judge in all his judicial wisdom finds the act of Vagina Gluer well intentioned, and punished yes punished wife with 100 lashes and some paltry fine to husband.

The question is : well I leave on you guys whether religion can be questioned or not. I personally feel, it is not the religion but the depraved mentality of males that is leading them to all sort of barbaric acts. The religion has given upper hand to males, and these males do not wish to make any change as the time progresses, the convenient interpretation continues.

 

[origin]

I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

I am not an islamaphobe. Every person of the Islam faith that I have met and talked to has been a moral and good person.
Radical fundamentilists of all faiths can be scary. There are areas in this world where christians have passed laws that make homosexuality a crime punishable by death. There are christians that have multiple wives, not all of them particularly willing.

Islam does not have a lock on crazy. Zelots are nuts, whatever the religious excuse for their immoral behaviour

 

[birch]

I am not an islamaphobe. Every person of the Islam faith that I have met and talked to has been a moral and good person.

but that is not true and it can be tested. if you ask a christian or a muslim to read their texts/holy books and directly/honestly take them to task regarding the many heinous, perverted, immoral and barbaric teachings or precepts, they will evade, lie, condone passive-aggressively, slyly, subtly, make excuses etc. all but admit the truth that is wrong or that they are against such things. it's not perceived as men writing from their particular barbaric past, it's recognized as the word of GOD through prophets.

they are being willing vessels/hosts or carriers of the disease within religion, by letting the nasty aspects remain dormant within them but to be let out of the bag or exercised in the future by others. again, they will not take responsiblility and separate themselves conveniently whilst still promoting their religion as a whole passively. that doesn't make them innocent either, maybe less but also the problem.

 

[Bells]

The danger that I see is that there are many aspects of contemporary Islamic theology that deserve criticism and opposition.

Of course there are. But the same can be said for any religion or non-religious organisation. In other words, no group is perfect, regardless of religion or political affiliation.

The issue we now face is that we are selective in who we criticise. We willingly turn a blind eye to gross abuses in other religions, for example, but focus solely on Islam and treat it like it is the evil to end all evils. There are over 1 billions Muslims in the world. But we seem to view the whole as being bad, as deserving of criticism, when the majority do not deserve said criticism. Do we do the same with other religions? No.

For example, the Catholic Church has been plagued by accusations and criminal convictions of paedophile priests. The organisation itself has gone out of its way historically and currently, to protect paedophiles within the Church itself. From moving paedophile priests around parishes, to condemning victims of abuse and accusing them of wrong doing, to even flying the accused to the Vatican, where they are protected and cannot be touched, to the obstruction of justice to protect these priests. When we criticise these obscene acts, we criticise the Church, the organisation itself. We do not label Catholics as being the problem.

The same cannot be said for Islam and Muslims. We criticise Muslims, instead of the minute few who decide to radicalise or the branch of radical Islam. Accusations are labeled against Muslims as a whole.

But in today's social climate, any criticism of Islam or Muslims is defined as 'hate'. So what we have in the West is easily exploitable enforced stupidity, that might ultimately result in the suicide of Western civilization itself.

Well, when you label the whole as being at fault or wrong because of the actions of the few, when laws are enacted to punish the whole, because of the actions of the few, when laws and regulations directly target and discriminate against the whole, because of the actions of the few, it is "hate". It is bigotry. And it is wrong.

It makes the West no better than radicals who exist on the peripherals of "Islam", who demand that all convert or believe as they do or face persecution. The issue in the West is that we persecute Muslims, the entire group, for the actions of a minute of the entirety of the 1+ billion people who belong to the religion. Persecution is "hate", Yazata. And comments that seem to support said persecution and seeming to argue that any attempts to stop said persecution will result in the "suicide of Western civilisation" is based on hate and bigotry. Such arguments are dangerous and frankly, obscene.

Worse yet, such arguments only lead to more feeling persecuted enough to begin to contemplate radicalisation.

The biggest 'radical Islam' threat we face is frankly from ourselves. The more we persecute, the more Muslims we push to radicalise. There is a continuing thread in the terror attacks in the West.. All felt persecuted and all became radical because they felt persecuted for the actions of others. We are our own worst enemy in that regard.

 

[exchemist]

but that is not true and it can be tested. if you ask a christian or a muslim to read their texts/holy books and directly/honestly take them to task regarding the many heinous, perverted, immoral and barbaric teachings or precepts, they will evade, lie, condone passive-aggressively, slyly, subtly, make excuses etc. all but admit the truth that is wrong or that they are against such things. it's not perceived as men writing from their particular barbaric past, it's recognized as the word of GOD through prophets.

they are being willing vessels/hosts or carriers of the disease within religion, by letting the nasty aspects remain dormant within them but to be let out of the bag or exercised in the future by others. again, they will not take responsiblility and separate themselves conveniently whilst still promoting their religion as a whole passively. that doesn't make them innocent either, maybe less but also the problem.

Are you saying you know better than Origin the moral character of his own acquaintances?

 

[Greatest I am]

Why is there only one begotten son of God? Is he you?

The God sold by Christianity say that God has no limits, yet God is limited to only one begotten son. Or is he?

Is there is only one begotten son of God, Jesus, because you can only create one?

All sons of God are creations of your own mind, gleaned from finding your internal spark of God, as described by Jesus, who states clearly that God is within you. Within you can only exist one God and thus only one son of God. That son of God is yourself, should you choose to follow Jesus’ way.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Are you ready to step up?

Regards
DL

 

[Kittamaru]

If I'm reading right... it sounds like you are claiming we are each "the son or daughter of God"...

Are you conflating that with being the "Son of God" (eg, Jesus)?

 

[Greatest I am]

If I'm reading right... it sounds like you are claiming we are each "the son or daughter of God"...

Are you conflating that with being the "Son of God" (eg, Jesus)?

Yes.

Be you male or female, Jesus indicates that we are all capable of being sons and daughters of God.

I have become a brethren to Jesus thanks to having suffered apotheosis and would draw those who can to also follow the instructions Jesus gave us to follow.

Those links speak better than I on this. Please follow them.

Regards
DL