U.S. Constitution didn't come from the Bible. Rather it came as a direct result of The Reformation & The Enlightenment.

The U.S. Constitution didn't come from the Bible. Rather it came as a direct result of The Reformation & The Enlightenment.

On the back of Modified and Enlightened and Evolved Christian tradition.

So not directly from the Bible, but it was done by children raised within the general European Christian tradition that's true.

When I examine who on the social & political landscape supports a.) the freedom to draw Mohamed, and b.) the publishing of such cartoons, the list is very small: Libertarians who're mostly conservative, and a few very (very) lonely leftists.

When Obama states that his preferred future belongs to people who never talk smack about Mohamed or the prophets of other religions, he's turning his back on the principles of The Enlightenment, principles which allowed America and it's Constitution to exist in the first place. He's also turning his back on all the people who want to (f-ing) leave abusive cults like Islam (& Mormonism & other highly abusive religions).

more info:
http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/25/president-obama-says-we-must-condemn-tho

So, it's true that ex-Muslims / atheists who pop up, rather naturally these days, within Islamic theocracies are little gems who should be valued & protected. They exist & live within countries which are essentially meat grinders, grinding against all opposition to the status quo.

Here's a special vid of an atheist visiting Mecca:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ5x0vAEaCw

I'm sure that Obama would be upset by such a vid, as per his past comments about the supposed strong need to never offend a devout cult member.

Before 9/11 I had mostly zero idea what Islam was about. After 9/11 I woke up & realized that people in Islamic countries sometimes find their lives to be so shitty that they lash out in unhinged ways - misdirected anger. The 9/11 attacks were performed by men who were angry - but they should have been angry at their religion rather than at 3000+ innocent people in those towers.

The Enlightenment human tradition is a unique one, and one that should be valued. Freedom of speech. Freedom of thought. Freedom of religion. Freedom from religion. Freedom of commerce (mostly). Governmental transparency (hopeful). Freedom for science to progress. Freedom for science to question traditional religious dogmas & doctrines regarding literalist interpretations of a god. When leftists like Glenn Greenwald and Noam Chomsky (& many other 'regressive' leftists) blame America first for all that is wrong with the Middle East, they're also turning their backs on the Enlightenment tradition which allows them to speak & exist in the first place.

Mr. Greenwald is gay for example. If he lived in an Islamic theocracy he'd be suppressed at the very least or killed at worst.

The cold war abuses of America are not responsible for every single thing that ails the world. Religious theocracy, that of a specific religion, is largely to blame. And yes, it's a religion - that is Islam is a religion.

Before 9/11 I sat in my little ex-Mormon chamber and just thought about ex-Mormon things. I knew Joseph Smith was a charismatic charlatan. I know Brigham Young was an abusive authoritarian theocratic bozo. I relished the works of people like Monty Python with their general criticism of Christianity (eg: Life of Brian), and of Mormon specific humorist organizers like Steve Clark (operator of Latter-Day Lampoon now renamed The Salamander Society).

Consider what Muslim versions of the following works of art would look like?

Life of Brian:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python's_Life_of_Brian

Latter-Day Lampoon (aka Salamander Society):
http://salamandersociety.com/

Would Obama approve?

How about your average MSNBC & CBC & BBC presenter?

So I was raised in an itty-bitty religion which has as it's key tenant a required cult of personality revolving around this guy named Joseph Smith. Then when I got older I wised up & left that religion.

That whole experience provided greater insight into the entirely of the situation with Islam, it's followers, and those who want to leave it and be free of it.

A communist who left it (Maryam Namazie):
http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/2013/02/01/world-hejab-day/

A libertarian (Ayaan Hirsi Ali):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali

Another libertarian & big Ayn Rand supporter (Bosch Fawstin):
http://fawstin.blogspot.com/

And some people stay in to varying degrees, or are just 'marginally' in:

Maajid Nawaz:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maajid_Nawaz

Tawfik Hamid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxfo11A7XuA

Maajid is considered an 'Uncle Tom' by hijab-loving Muslims though. And Tawfik is a former hard line Muslim w/key info re how Sunni flavor Islam prompts young men within it to consider getting virgins in paradise via suicide as a viable option for sexual expression (check the vid linked to above).

Charlie Hebdo was mostly killed off, and it's remaining members have given up publishing drawings of the prophet of Islam. So Obama's preferred future has been fulfilled re Hebdo. Hebdo was and is an ultra-leftist publication, but one which was 'very lonely' on the left - lonely like Bill Maher is, and lonely like Sam Harris is, and like Salman Rushdie is. Lonely leftists who could never get a Mohamed cartoon published in any mainline leftie publication if they tried.

In any case, I was raised an American Democrat. Now I'm a general middle of the roader. A moderate Republican/Libertarian, or a very very blue dog Democrat. But as per the response of the left to Hebdo (the murder of the artists) & Garland (Garland, Texas cartoon contest attempted to be shot up by Islamic adherents) though I'm a bit loath to refer myself as a Democrat at all. The response of the left to those events shows that the left, as it stands today, as nothing to offer people who want to a.) leave Islam, or b.) criticize Islam exactly the same way we've been criticizing Christianity for hundreds of years.

Also America isn't a full democracy. It's a republic. A representative democracy. There republicanism helps to quell craziness & chaos & stupidity which can come from 'full democracy.'

When 'democracy' came to the Islamic middle east, the secularists were mostly drowned out by the thoecrats (so far).

Where in an Islamic 'democracy' is one free to draw Mohamed? Nowhere? Then the principles of the Enlightenment are not being fully engaged. Freedom of speech. Freedom of though. Freedom of religion. Freedom from religion. Freedom for science to examine & critique literalist religious claims which touch upon the physical world. And so on.

There's slight bright spots here & there. Example:
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/12/30/egypt-president-calls-for-islamic-reform-again-in-muhammad-birthday-speech/
http://www.clarionproject.org/videos/egypts-president-el-sisi-calls-islamic-reformation

But in which Islamic country can one be an atheist openly? Criticize Mohamed? Draw Mohamed? Lampoon Mohamed - EXACTLY the way Monty Python did regarding Anglican Christianity? Nowhere yet.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2530920/You-parody-Islam-says-Palin-Monty-Python-star-believes-religious-sensitivities-increased-impossible-make-Life-Brian-today.html

But some ex-Muslims (and friends) somewhere shall do this someday soon I hope (parody Islam in total Life of Brian style & more).

Liberal anger at being human - Criticisms of California Senate Bill SB 967

Debunking the dominant paradigm - a never ending job.

Here, specifically, the State tells us exactly how to have sex:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967

"...lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent..."

Who says?

This is the government of California telling everyone in colleges in California, exactly, how to have sex.

The abusers deserve to be locked up. But this goes too far. And wrongful accusers can be abusers as well.

More criticisms of the bill:

http://www.thefire.org/fire-statement-on-california-affirmative-consent-bill/

http://www.independent.com/news/2014/aug/11/affirmative-consent-u/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/churchformen/2014/09/men-the-sexual-revolution-is-over/

http://www.city-journal.org/2014/cjc0718bb.html

And sometimes even the libertarians are right:

http://libertarianviewpoint.com/blog/california-government-proposes-license-law-for-consensual-sex/

"...it is fundamentally abhorrent for the government to be in your bedroom..."

also check out:
http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/29/jerry-brown-signs-bill-telling-college-k

It's also abhorrent for the church to be in your bedroom as well (eg: your average Mormon bishop or Catholic priest).

http://corvus.freeshell.org/corvus_corax/two/life_path/Mortal_Mormonism.htm

Rape laws are already on the books. But this new law goes way too far. Plus it's based on a lie - the one in five lie. More info:

1 in 5: Debating the Most Controversial Sexual Assault Statistic
http://time.com/2934500/1-in-5%E2%80%82campus-sexual-assault-statistic/

2.5% probably, not 20.

Quote from article:

"...This means that 2.5% of women are sexually assaulted in college, not 20%..."

In the military the risks to women are higher than in the general population that's true. In college the risks are less.

And dually-boozing partners who have buyer's remorse afterward should not be included in any rape statistics.

Politifact's take:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/may/02/are-20-percent-women-sexually-assaulted-they-gradu/

Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/05/01/one-in-five-women-in-college-sexually-assaulted-the-source-of-this-statistic/

Judgy Bitch chimes in:
http://judgybitch.com/2014/04/30/i-am-now-officially-sick-of-rape-culture-bullshit/

Interesting comments:
http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_politics.htm

From the above:

"...a view held by many on the left that presumes man is born a blank slate..."

OMG! The Blank Slate! Remember that one!

Pinker debunks the blank slate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate
...see related videos of Pinker talking about this on youtube & TED.

Humans are not born blank slates, and leftists work to deny human nature in huge ways. Righties deny human nature in other ways (& truth & facts). But it's sad to see that both sides are in denial.

From Wendy McElroy:
http://blog.panampost.com/editor/2014/04/14/the-big-lie-of-a-rape-culture/

From Caroline Kitchens:
Rape Hysteria & the Rape Culture Lie Must End
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/rape-hysteria-the-rape-culture-lie-must-end-jessicavalenti-rapeculture/

Anyway I agree that NFL jocks who hit their girlfriends & wives should be ejected. I agree that abusers who break the law should be locked up.

There *may* be "rape culture" in some hiphop music. But it's way too non-PC to be honest about that...

Also rape is about sex, not just about control. I have no idea why people say it's not about sex. How do they know? And what happens during rape anyway?

Is rape about control or sex?
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/is-rape-about-control-or-sex

"...Evolutionary psychologists have been at pains to show that rape is actually a sexual crime through which men seek sexual gratification from women who would otherwise refuse them..."

related blog post:

Why do rapists rape? For power or sex?
http://emmatheemo.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/why-do-rapists-rape-for-power-or-sex-lets-ask-a-rapist/

from apparently conservative blogger
http://glaivester.blogspot.com/2006/03/rape-is-about-sex-duh.html

"...Which leads in to the reason why we keep hearing that rape is not about sex. It is philosophically untenable to keep pushing the boundaries of the sexual revolution without making rape seem less and less violative by comparison, as the act which is coerced in rape becomes less and less private, personal, and valued in society. So the only way to retain the sense of horror at rape is to alter the rationale for rape being bad; that the goal is total violation, so that the violence becomes the issue; rather than the horror coming from the intimacy of the act which was forced upon the victim, which is the old rationale..."

---

A tough topic but it's important to be honest. There's fear mongering & inappropriate shaming on the left that needs to be debunked, called out, and resisted.

Forcibly imposed upon self, and all people, undue flagellation & shame, because yes some humans are criminals or abusers. But not everyone is and we all shouldn't be treated like we are.

Anger and hatred at being human, at all humans, because a few humans do bad things. Now that is a type of "rape culture," rape of a different kind.

Both the right AND the left seek to use & abuse students in colleges & universities for their own ends. Both sides tell them lies, about human nature, and the truth.

A portion of the "sexual revolution" has, can, and does destroy families (ie: advocacy for non-monogamy, for the "childfree" life, for disposable marriages, and for seeking to have a general disconnect between sexuality & reproduction - all incredibly abusive tenants of the revolution).

The parts of the revolution that advocate for honesty, education, having more fun with our partners, being less inhibited with our partners, and not shaming for adults viewing other adults sexual activities (eg: sexuality expressed in art & film) - yes those are some generally good parts. But seeking to outright deny human nature, and decouple sex from having babies is evil & abusive.

Both sides have an agenda: to hide the truth in their own ways.

Yes evolution by natural selection did happen. No there is no god. But, on the other hand you can really fuck up your life if you "choose" to live a wastrel childfree life when you could have, and should have, had some kids. You can fuck up your children via adultery and believing you can easily bail on your husband or wife.

Separating yourself too far from the tree of life, and from basic human nature, can screw up your life & the lives of others.

Oh, and a certain percentage of humans will be naturally born criminals (sociopaths & worse). Lock them up, I very much agree...

---

p.s. Found this video;

http://youtu.be/1KQQ1bzQn0k

on Daniel Pipes, Israel, Islam & democracy, the veil, group dynamics

on Daniel Pipes, Israel, and what happens in "democracies" when Islam is voted in.

When Islamists vote in a "democracy" they vote in sharia and literalist Islam (regular traditional Islam).

How much hair a woman gets to show in an Islamic country is an indication of how much freedom there is there. There is an inverse relationship between the level of veiling and the level of freedom in Islamic countries. So it IS all about the veil.

Human groups morph over time. Pet bird clubs. Atheist groups. Religion. Politics. Name any group on any topic and they will change, sprout, split, and morph over time. It's natural.

July 9, 2013