America's mushy middle: eight types of voters:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28025641
Thanks 1.3 billion Chinese, oh and the Black Atheists of Atlanta, and even your average Mexican, for helping me question the leftists who hate "breeders," and life, and who are essentially wastrels part of a destructive death cult.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/forget-republican-or-democrat-americans-divide-by-their-values/2014/06/27/00e86ac4-fe2c-11e3-91c4-01dcd9b73086_story.html
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/am-i-a-faith-and-family-leftist/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=am-i-a-faith-and-family-leftist
There's often zero room in your average atheist / humanist / Unitarian Universalist group for people who question the incredibly naive, dangerous, destructive, denialistic, nihilistic, narcissistic, denial of human nature, history, evolutionary biology, and so on, social positions of the left. The leftist death cult. Yes, I'm skeptical of that! Life is more important than these wastrels & their kin. Oh, but wait, they usually don't have children. But breeders will inherit the Earth...
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/06/breeders-will-inherit-earth-problems.html
Additional thoughts including how Unitarian Universalism and the ultra-left is very similar to the Shaker religion.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/shakers
All the many grey haired people at the First Unitarian Church in Salt Lake City. Very few children. And a general cultural hatred for having children.
STFU Parents:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/stfu%20parents
Childfree:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/childfree
De facto celibacy. Slow motion suicide.
http://www.amazon.com/Decline-Fall-Europes-Motion-Suicide/dp/B0096EPE48
Childfree yourself & everyone afflicted by the memetic dissease that infects your brain, right out of existence...
And Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was a eugenicist.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/03/margaret-sanger-also-amoral-fuck.html
These people just don't get it:
http://www.meetup.com/aofuslc/events/117023522/
http://www.slugmag.com/uploads/photos/img19665.jpg
Good without god? Well, maybe not.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/family-values-atheism-questioning.html
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/recovery-from-atheists-of-utah.html
Doesn't mean there is a god. But humanity may not quite be easily readily to go without this fully natural evolutionary trait (religion), like it or not.
-----------------------
July 2017 addendum:
I'm not longer in the leftist camp at all.
From socialist to very pro-capitalist.
From social leftist to social consevative.
Pro baby killing to pro life (with caveats for incest and rape, and only during very early pregnancy).
Against outlier 'marriage.' Children deserve to be in a normal-for-them environment, one which honors 1.2 billion years of sexual evolutionary history.
When leftists control the government they operate it in such a way which serves to deny their own evolutionary history and nature.
Showing posts with label unitarian universalist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label unitarian universalist. Show all posts
Saturday, June 28, 2014
Saturday, May 10, 2014
Did Jewish Circumcision help lead to the Holocaust? | Both sides are right (& wrong).
All sides are right (& wrong), liberals, moderates, & conservatives.
All sides are right - all sides have valid points. And all sides are wrong also.
Attention atheist groups: I don't want to be in your religions. I left one religion already. I don't wish to join yours. I don't wish to kiss the ass of your de facto priests. I don't wish to join your chump chorus of ultra-liberalism.
It's been a long hard road. I've examined what goes on with "the left," and I've found it to be just as abusive as what goes on with "the right."
Key background:
1. Spending 26 years in the Mormon Church.
2. Went on a Mormon mission to Alaska.
3. Going to Rick College for a year (now BYU Idaho).
4. Being a temple worker in more than one Mormon temple.
5. Going to BYU in Provo, Utah for a year.
6. Leaving the Mormon Church.
7. Living in Texas.
8. Living in Oregon, checking out the wild Alice-in-Wonderland-style scene there & the fucking hippies.
9. Marrying a woman from China, where they've had pretty much zero exposure to Mormonism, Catholicism, & most other churches, and examining what their views are.
10. Hearing from people like Steven Pinker with his book The Blank Slate. Also from Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens.
11. Daniel Dennett talking about how religion is a natural phenomenon.
12. Making note of how I had one uncle who grew up in Manti, Utah (ultra conservative Mormon small town). This uncle went to San Francisco to "let it all hang out," to apparently rebel against his ultra-conservative upbringing. He ended up dying of AIDS as a supposedly gay man, leaving his straight family with no father. WTF. A victim of BOTH Mormonism, and the gay freaks of San Francisco. Forced to jump from one side directly to the other. Abused by both!
13. Making note of the drunk bum aunt with no kids I knew as a child, the one who'd often phone my father while drunk. No kids of her own. A dead end largely meaningless life.
14. Making note of my gay nephew who leads an incredibly petty, shallow, and misguided life as an angle reader, and as a guy who readily accepts convicted pedophiles into his network of friends - I saw this first hand. Also making note of my many experiences going out with this nephew to gay bars & parties, and observing first hand the narcissistic messed-up people who tend to show up to such events (friends of my nephew). Truman Capote types. Shallow, sorry, messed up, narcissistic, people.
15. And yet (!) also making note of the service oriented gay people who help us & other people, and whose life work is centered around helping others. Also making note of the life work of people like Stephen Fry & Oscar Wilde.
16. Making note of how BOTH ultra conservatism and ultra liberalism are abusive to the progress of humanity.
Examples of how both sides are right (& wrong):
On abortion:
Yes, Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist, and Peter Singer is an amoral fuck.
After-viability abortion is murder.
Before viability (the closer to conception & the further away from viability), the more "choice" there is that can be reasonably allowed.
In the case of the average crack whore pregnancy, or rape, or incest: before viability, the "choice" is still there to help prevent the birth. But, once viability is reached, the point of "choice" has fully & completely passed.
On the whole gay thing:
It's true that a gay marriage is not the same as straight marriage. Gay sex is not the same as straight sex.
Straight sex & straight marriage is inherently more valuable, to humanity, and to the individual, and to human flourishing!
Gay sex is not as inherently valuable as straight sex. Gay sex is inherently a dead end.
Whatever the biological underpinnings are for being gay, because of the nature of how sex works in humans (& other animals), unless you work to avoid it you may end up having a dead end stunted life.
I was a liberal chump about this issue in the past. Now, as per taking a step back and examining what I observed first hand both with my gay nephew & gay uncle, I've changed by views.
And yet: There are service oriented gay people who spend their lives helping others. That's great! And I value the life work of people like Stephen Fry & Oscar Wilde!
It's true that gay people shouldn't be discriminated against regarding apartments or jobs! They should be able to have civil unions.
But on the other hand, when we talk about things like adoptions, or having children around, a straight kid growing up in a gay household will not have his or her straightness valued as much - by default. The abusive narcissistic petty dead end shit that goes on in gay culture could well easily mess up any otherwise-normal straight kid growing up around gay culture. So the right does have a point about this!
A certain level of concern regarding homosexuality is good, but on the other hand, the ultra-right goes way to far with their level of concern.
For example, in Mormonism they tell their children that masturbation can lead to homosexuality. Such a claim is child abuse. And of course the stance of Uganda on the issue is abusive. So the right goes way to far in their condemnation.
We shouldn't be as harsh as the right on the issue, nor as open as the left.
Children may NEED a mommy & a daddy, to be healthy, happy, well rounded, and thrive.
So like it or not, both sides are right, to a point, and with appropriate caveats.
On environmentalism, tree hugging, and overpopulation:
How are both sides right?
We do need to work to preserve & protect the garden. Yes that's quite true. Humans DO contribute to global warming. Also true. BUT, on the other hand, population control IS an abusive response!
Science & technology are the answers! Nothing else is! NOT forced population control on a personal or country level! That is an abusive response!
There's no such thing as overpopulation in first world countries - this is quite true. And humans DO come first above other animals and plants.
Liberal ideology, prompting you to be childless, may leave you a zero on the great mandala.
From what I've seen: Liberals hate children, normal families, and so on. STFU Parents is the tip of the iceburg. It seems to me that: liberals hate having children, and the normal family structure.
Your average college age kid will go to a liberal college or university & come away convinced that he or she should probably not have kids of his or her own because of concern over the environment. Abusive. Wrong headed. Brainwashing. Just as much braining washing by the left as what goes on with the right.
For the relativist liberal their ideal "family" is a childless one - because then the environment and the Earth is protected - supposedly. Stupid. Abusive. Such wrong headed evil ideology will lead them, and everyone sucked in by such ideology, to be pretty much a zero in the long term. Win or loose now you must choose now. Where will you be the tapestry of life?
Lesbians at the weekly Thursday coffee chat of Atheists of Utah claim that Mormons who have a lot of kids are stupid. However it's the angry loud mouthed lesbians who're being stupid. Who will have the last laugh in 100 years?
I remember the related talk I gave at my mother's funeral at a Mormon meeting house.
Additional thoughts on all these issues:
To fully accept the equality of gay marriage the left must first assume that having children is not a valuable thing.
It's a good thing that we want to have kids - for many reasons. Not just because we're horny. Children are our future. And the liberal death cult is rather quite similar to the Shakers. The childfree life, and the homosexual lifestyle, is de facto celibacy.
Read this article:
http://www.strangenotions.com/very-sad-childfree-life/
Simply replace the word "god" with "14.5 billion years of evolution by natural selection." I know it's hard, but try to see though the Bible-centered language - through to our incredibly deep history as a species. DOES HAVING NO CHILDREN really honor your own personal billion-year history?
Being childfree is sad, petty, and ultimately a dead end. A death cult, by any other name, is still a death cult.
But, read what the Guardian says about the issue:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/16/choice-child-free-admirable-not-selfish
Leftist relativist brain washing. Leftist dogma that will stunt your life!
No, having a dog or cat around is not the same as a having human child! Not the same in the fucking least. Abused by liberalism, just as much as you may have been abused by conservatism!
Go to the First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City. There you will find a congregation of grey haried liberals who don't really value having children, and normal families. Cultural relativists being abused by their own anti-children anti-family leftist ideology.
De facto religions of atheism & humanism are abusive.
But on the other hand (!!!): Rightist religions like are Mormonism are also abusive, for example when they tell children that masturbation is evil, should be feared, & may well lead to homosexuality.
Catholicism is also of course abusive when it comes to child raping priests. But, both Mormonism & Catholicism DO have valid points when it comes to abortion & birth control. Yes, you ARE abusing yourself if you exclude the possibility of children from your life!
It's a damn fucking hard truth to realize that very valuable & good elements of positive human morality can be fully rooted within otherwise abusive religion.
HOW can we realize this?
By examining what non-Catholic non-Mormon human cultures do and think!
Go to fucking China!
Take a step back!
Also consider again the double edged sword of Daniel Dennett's true revelation that religion is a natural phenomenon.
More on the problems with leftist religion:
The largely leftist religion of Judaism, which engages in the mass genital rape of their children, is very abusive.
Recently I toured the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C.
Here's a hard question for the religion of Judaism:
Is your own promotion of separation from other groups, as part of your religion, in any way responsible for the past expression of fully natural human out-group morality, natural human out-group morality which was expressed in the past?
Forced genital rape of your own children.
Teaching your children that they are better than others.
Such actions naturally caused other groups of humans to more readily express natural human out-group morality in your case. Like it or not.
Examining what happened with Naziism and the Holocaust is rather like staring human out-group morality directly in the face.
The Nazis were fully human, humans expressing out-group morality.
And when your religion promotes separation between your group & others, you could well more easily fall victim to sociopathic nut jobs like Hitler who were able to effectively take advantage of this fully natural readily available negative side of built-in human morality.
Group think. Mob mentality. Survival morality. Nationalism. Provincialism. And even the Old Testament is completely filled with expressions of advocacy for out-group morality.
For Judaism here's a hopeful website:
http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org
Life is not so simple.
--------------
Don't want me in your atheist church? I don't want to be in your church.
I don't accept your religion, left or right. Rather I want to be an advocate for science, helpful progress which promotes widespread happiness, well being & health, and survival.
Truth & honestly are required for healthy progress. That means staring our own history in the face and being willing to accept what we see. And to then try to work through what we see clearly.
Mormon Bishops DO abuse children in their care when they teach children that masturbation is evil & may lead to homosexaulity.
And yet, homosexual couples do PERHAPS abuse children by raising them in forcibly-relativist dogmatically politically correct households where straightness is not valued, nor honored, nor supported, nor promoted.
So BOTH sides are being abusive, ok?
The answer to conservatism is not liberalism. Instead it's honest science, observation, and tying into ALL of what it means to be human (including being willing to shame & blame & judge where appropriate & useful - !!!). A VERY VERY fucking hard thing for an ex-conservative-religionist to accept! Damn hard.
-----
Thank goodness the Internet is expanding our in-group morality.
There is hope though. In all religions people are becoming less abusive. It just takes time.
And, let me say there's aspects of ALL cultures & religions which I personally value.
I'm PRO-human. Pro-happy-human. Pro-true-and-honest-naturalism, in as much as being for those natural parts of us which can help us be happy. But, I'm also pro-honesty. Falling into naturalistic fallacies is also a consideration.
We have to be willing to look ourselves in the mirror, and to help promote what looks good, and remove the pimples which don't. That's all.
---
Did Jewish Circumcision help lead to the Holocaust? | Both sides are right: Liberals & Conservatives
Social conservatism. Social liberalism. Politics. Etc.
Friday, July 19, 2013
Just because you like dicks doesn't mean you should cheat on your wife - and comments on the gay flag
Just because you like dicks doesn't mean you should cheat on your wife, get aids, die, and leave your family with no father. And just because you like vaginas as well as dicks that doesn't mean you should cheat on your husband, and then go off to live with your lesbo buddy.
I'm an atheist and I don't believe in cults of personality, nor in being drawn into the assumption that atheism necessarily leads to being socially ultra-left. Being an atheist for me means being willing to take a step back from all dogmas, not only from the right but also from the left.
Criticisms of flying the gay flag universally, as doing so may transmit the assumption that people in the flag-flying group universally agree with all aspects of the perceived "gay agenda."
On when bi or homosexual men cheat on their wives, get aids, die, and leave their families with no father. I believe we should be open to debate whether "middle children" should be encouraged to live a straight life - otherwise we are having unquestionable dogma points just like in a religion.
Just because a person is an atheist, a secular advocate, or an advocate for science & naturalism doesn't mean they embrace 100% of the ultra-left agenda.
Wives who're members of conservative religions should meet their apparently bisexual husbands half-way, by leaving their abusive conservative religions, and by not being upset about porn. And then the husbands should not cheat & go elsewhere.
July 19, 2013 - 7:44am
Friday, February 1, 2013
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Two views from Saudi: Hi guys (or gals)!
My video on Islam & Unitarianism has had
two views (so far) from Saudi (as per the stats page for the video). They're
checking me out...
Here's a video of an atheist visiting Mecca:
The previous occurrences of the account were deleted via trolls.
For example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGmOpVrYJ5Q has been terminated. So watch the newest incarnation of the atheist in Mecca video while you can.
And here again is a film where an apparent atheist visits a Mormon temple, to view the ceremony where they show a film:
and here's the version of the Mormon temple ceremony that has live actors:
Hi again, guys and (hopefully) gals from Saudi Arabia. Thanks for checking out my videos. I'm glad you were able to stop by...
Here's a video of an atheist visiting Mecca:
The previous occurrences of the account were deleted via trolls.
For example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGmOpVrYJ5Q has been terminated. So watch the newest incarnation of the atheist in Mecca video while you can.
And here again is a film where an apparent atheist visits a Mormon temple, to view the ceremony where they show a film:
and here's the version of the Mormon temple ceremony that has live actors:
Hi again, guys and (hopefully) gals from Saudi Arabia. Thanks for checking out my videos. I'm glad you were able to stop by...
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Atheists, exmormons, ex-Muslims, and so on "moving on" - video commentary
January 19, 2013 video commentary on atheists, exmormons, and people who've left other religions "moving on."
Are you uncomfortable being around atheists, ex-mormons, ex-Muslims, or people who've left other cults - people with a lot of "religious baggage?"
Here's a video commentary for you, and also about whether people are free to speak their mind while inside various religions or not. Also avoiding cults of personality, even in atheist groups.
Related blog post:
Why are exmormons and atheists so angry? Because they have damn good reasons to be.
https://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/01/why-are-exmormons-so-angry-because-they.html
Are you uncomfortable being around atheists, ex-mormons, ex-Muslims, or people who've left other cults - people with a lot of "religious baggage?"
Here's a video commentary for you, and also about whether people are free to speak their mind while inside various religions or not. Also avoiding cults of personality, even in atheist groups.
Related blog post:
Why are exmormons and atheists so angry? Because they have damn good reasons to be.
https://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/01/why-are-exmormons-so-angry-because-they.html
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Unitarian Universalist fawning appreciation of Mohammad and Islam
After hearing that a Salt Lake City, Utah based Unitarian Universalist congregation was going to teach a five week long course advocating the value of Mohammad and Islam to their teens, and after hearing them fawningly talk about Mohammad during a church meeting, I decided to investigate further the current status of UUism relative to Islam. I found that on a prominent website for American Unitarianism they have some highly pro-Islamic pro-Mohammad statements. So yesterday I drafted a 23 page letter in response. Here's quotes from the letter. Included in my letter are relevant links to the issues at hand.
This issue is especially relevant to some secular advocates (atheists/humanists/naturalists/etc.) as sometimes we sometimes show up to UU meetings for social support.
_____________________.
November 30, 2010
To the following parties:
Unitarian Universalist Service Committee (UUSC), 689 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139-3302
Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA), 25 Beacon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02108
South Valley Unitarian Universalist Society (SVUUS), 6876 South Highland Drive, Cottonwood Heights, Utah 84121
First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City, 569 South 1300 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102
Greetings,
This letter concerns Unitarian Universalism’s appreciation of and approach to Islam. Here is what I have observed:
Observation 1:
Children being told about Mohammad (the prophet of Islam) in glowing and appreciative terms, during the “children’s teaching time” at the service of the SVUUS.
Observation 2:
Being told at the SVUUS service that when Islam was first starting, women had more rights and they had a lot of freedoms. We were also told that Islam is a beautiful and peaceful religion, and that Mohammad was a great man. This declaration occurred just a few weeks ago at the SVUUS congregational meeting, when a special five week long religious education course on Islam was announced for teens.
Observation 3:
The UUSC having on their web site direct links to Islamic religious curricula, curricula which claims without question, that Mohammad received a revelation from a god. The following [now archived] UUSC website links directly to, without any disclaimer, religious education material offered by the American Islamic Congress.
Building Bridges Toolkit:
http://web.archive.org/web/20120519235021/http://www.uusc.org/buildingbridges/toolkit
Observation 4:
On the UUSC website there is a religious education document which states the following:
“…Muslims are a part of our local and global communities. Their struggles are our own…”
“…Islam is a complex and beautiful faith…”
Also the document in question heavily references the work of Reza Aslan.
Document link:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150322110533/http://www.isna.net/uploads/1/5/7/4/15744382/uu_muslim_interfaith_guide.pdf
previously at (http://www.uua.org/documents/washingtonoffice/uu_muslim_interfaith_guide.pdf)
Observation 5:
I requested from SVUUS, both via email and paper letter further information about the special five week course on Islam to be given to teens. No response was received.
Observation 6:
The UUA and the UUSC have issued a joint statement in support of the proposed Ground Zero Mosque.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130130143726/http://www.uusc.org/content/uusc_uua_declare_support_lower_manhattan_mosque
Before I respond to each point, allow me to give you some background:
My name is on the member books of both Unitarian congregations in the Salt Lake valley, for what it’s worth. I am an ex-Mormon. I spent 25 years as a strong believing Mormon. I was a Mormon missionary, temple worker, and Sunday school president. After leaving Mormonism I have had strong associations with several people within the exmormon movement, such as Dr. Simon Southerton, a former Mormon Bishop from Australia and DNA scientist. Dr. Southerton wrote a book about how DNA evidence shows that the people of the Book of Mormon did not come from Israel in 600 BCE. I also frequently attend the yearly Exmormon Foundation conferences in Salt Lake City. And, as is common for many people who leave Mormonism I have drafted a lengthy exit journal, which is available at the following URLs:
http://tinyurl.com/5dbe36
or http://corvus.freeshell.org in the “life path” section.
When I first encountered Unitarianism I found that it tended to be a place where people who had left more conservative religions tended to congregate. UUism tended to serve as a social support system for people in that situation. Thus outside of Utah usually it’s the ex-Catholics and maybe ex-Baptists who go. But in Utah at both Salt Lake congregations there are many exmormons who go.
And now here is my response to each observational point noted earlier:
Response to observation 1, regarding children in UUism being taught about Mohammad in a glowing and fawning way:
Mohammad was not Jesus and he was not Buddha. Jesus may have been a mythical person or he may have been real. But regardless, and in general, the teachings of Jesus were indeed more peaceful than those of Mohammad.
Buddha’s teachings were also infinitely more peaceful than those of Mohammad.
It is simply inappropriate for a religion which prides itself on “social justice” and on “civil rights” to glowingly, fawningly, and uncritically advocate for and on behalf of the founding prophet of Islam.
It just so happens that not everything is equal. Not all religions are equal. Religion is like the word “sport.” Badminton is not very comparable to rugby for example, except that all of the players are breathing when they play. And the same goes for the word religion. Stating or claiming that “all paths to the divine are of equal value,” this type of view, when it is expressed by the UUSC, sounds very much like a creed for a supposedly creedless church. You are making a position statement, and a claim about facts & real people, and your claims have bearing on the ability of people to thrive and be happy.
No, not all paths to the “divine” are of equal value. The path of the suicide bomber is not as equally valid as the path of the Buddhist monk to goes into a cave for 5 years to meditate, nor to that of a Jainist who filters his water through cheese cloth so as to avoid eating insects. The path of the genitally mutilating African tribal Islamic mother or Jewish moil are not as equally valid as those who reject child mutilation. And so on. Is this question really so difficult for you?
Regarding Mohammad specifically, what did the man do?
He advocated for the death of people who refused to convert.
He married a six year old and consummated that marriage when she was nine. There are several references to this fact on the Wikipedia page about Mohammad. And while in the past the claim of Wikipedia being largely the work of inaccurate chaos when it was first starting, that claim is no longer valid as per the hordes of extremely fastidious people who now operate the site on a volunteer basis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#Wives_and_children
…and check out reference numbers 53 through 58 on that page.
Mohammad clearly did engage in polygamy. Is this a pro-woman stance?
Mohammad wrote a rather bloodthirsty book known as the Quran, which advocates death and torture for all sorts of people. References the Skeptics Annotated Quran for great detail on this point: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm
Because of the scope of Unitarian Universalism’s fawning and unquestioning support for Islam, I am going to quote in this letter directly from commentary notes about passages in Mohammad’s holy book the Quran. As you read the following notes about passages in his book, consider your claim that “all paths to the divine are equally valid.” And consider the validity of teaching children in a fawning way about just how great and wonderful Mohammad, the author of the following words, was and is:
From the Skeptics Annotated Quran website - notes about passages in the Quran
[in the letter I quote fully from
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/women/long.html
and http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html
]
Response to observation 2, regarding the claim by the SVUUS special five week long course on Islam for teenagers, and in response to the course preparers who claimed that early Islam (during & shortly after Mohammad’s time) was more friendly to women:
Does polygamy and the rape of a nine year old represent a pro-woman stance? Ample and readily available documentation regarding the life of Mohammad shows that he not only engaged in polygamy he also raped his nine year “wife.”
Are these actions by Mohammad “pro-woman?”
Is the widespread practice of polygamy in Islam “pro-woman?”
Is forcing a six year old into an arranged marriage, and then raping her at age nine – are these actions “pro-woman?”
Haven’t you bothered to do your research? Has Unitarianism gone so far off the rails as to claim outright lies about the life of Mohammad, and what Islam stands for, in large part?
Response to observation 3, regarding the UUSC’s fawning and direct connection to the American Islamic Congress.
Is it common for Unitarianism to have direct weblinks to the religious curricula of other religions? Why not also link to Mormon and Catholic curricula?
For example, since “all paths to the divine are of equal value,” as you appear to plainly claim on the UUSC website, may I suggest that you link to pages regarding Mormon doctrine which states that oral sex is not ordained of god, and that masturbation is a sin akin to murder (and as is sex outside of marriage & homosexual sex), or that Elohim (god the father) had literal sex with Mary the mother of Jesus? Or to the Catholic doctrine stating that all forms of birth control are evil, and that Catholic priests who rape children en masse should be protected from the law and “pitied” rather than punished.
Or how about you start linking to the Scientology doctrine of alien influence over humankind influence which must be overcome through many payments to Scientology teachers over the course of several years, or their advocacy for locking away your family members so they can be part of the “Sea Org?”
You’re violating your principle of having a “creedless church” by having direct links to the religious education texts of another religion – where those other directly linked to pages (by the American Islamic Congress) claim unquestionably that Mohammad received a revelation from his god AKA the god of Islam.
You are now directly linking UUism with Islam, and making UUism essentially a sect of Islam. Will you be doing the same for Catholicism, Mormonism, and Scientology? If not, why not? What makes Islam so special that you would find it necessary to provide direct links to the religious education texts of another religion?
Response to observation 4, regarding the claims that “…Muslims are a part of our local and global communities. Their struggles are our own…” and “…Islam is a complex and beautiful faith…,” and a strong unquestioning advocacy for the work of Reza Aslan.
Here we see again the Unitarian singularly unique appreciation for Islam above other religions. Do you also claim that Scientology is a complex & beautiful faith? How about Mormonism? How about Catholicism? How about the Branch Dividianism, or Hale-Bop-ism?
I have come to conclude that your incredibly one sided and uncritically fawning appreciation for Islam comes from one source: Your hatred for the war in Iraq, and a similar hatred which is now extending to the war in Afghanistan.
If you hate those wars, then the religion of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan must therefore be peaceful and beautiful, right?
But what do the founding texts of Islam say, about life, about women, about sex, about violence, and about those who refuse to believe? What do they plainly and clearly say?
Do you call the rape of a nine year old by Mohammad beautiful?
Do you consider the gender apartheid that is rampant and strongly advocated by countless Imams in Islam to be beautiful? A type of apartheid that warps the minds of the boys in Islam, so they have no idea how to properly socialize or to please women, & an apartheid drives the young men to suicide? Reference the videos made during the Secular Islam conference available on the website of the Center for Inquiry (www.centerforinquiry.net). Also is gender apartheid beautiful which warps girl’s minds, so they come to learn to love being bagged from head to toe Stockholm Syndrome style?
Is a faith (Islam) which drove well educated middle class men fly two airplanes into the twin towers in New York, resulting in the death of 3,000 Americans, and many thousands of collateral deaths in Iraq because of Bush’s reactions & possible overreactions? Is that faith beautiful, marvelous, and well worth fawning about to our children and to the UU church membership as a whole?
Is a faith which has as it’s founding text great advocacy for bloodthirsty violence beautiful?
And since you consider the “struggles of Islam” to be your struggle, or our struggle, do you include the struggles of the Taliban and of Hamas? How about the struggles of Osama Bin Ladin, or of the middle class Muslim adherents who killed 3,000 people on 9/11? How about the struggles of the road side bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan, as they plant bombs to kill American soldiers? Are the struggles of these Islamic adherents yours also? Are you asking their struggles to be mine?
Let me say that your complete support for Mohammad and his church results in the following: You all have completely forsaken key Unitarian Universalist principles with this response of yours to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Your hatred for Bush and his cohorts has driven you insane. When you heard from Bush’s Whitehouse the claim that “we make our own reality” – you poo pooed their claims as outrageous. But when you do the same by claiming that Islam is something it is not, you are doing the same. You are stating a lie, and then calling your lie the truth. That is doublespeak. And apparently liberals can engage in it just as much as conservatives can.
The bottom line is that it is most important to be honest.
Islam is both a religion of peace and a religion of human spirit destroying gender apartheid.
Islam is both a source of comfort for fluffy American women who convert to the extremely rare even in America non-veil-imposing non-gender-apartheid-imposing form of Islam, and a source of great and huge pain to the little girls in Afghanistan who get acid thrown in their face because they want to learn.
Islam is at very a different point in it’s history compared to Christianity. Christianity had a Reformation and an Enlightenment. Islam has not, or it’s having one or now – but only with our help. But it will only have a proper and true and full reformation if we are willing to be fully honest.
What you have on your websites is not honesty. It’s basically a bunch of lies about Islam. And it shows an inappropriate connection between Islam and Unitarian Universalism.
Since, traditionally, Unitarian Universalism has been a place where people could come for support when they leave other religions, consider how these actions of yours will hurt and damage those who leave Islam and want to come to UUism for support:
It will undercut them.
It will deny them a better path to recovery.
It will deny & seek to suppress the true & honest life experiences of those who have left Islam.
It will deny them a good opportunity to be intellectually and emotionally honest, and to be psychologically adult.
What if on your websites you made the same claims about Mormonism, and said that Mormonism was a complex and beautiful faith? You would subvert and undercut the path of exmormons who come to UUism to find solace and support - to find a way out of an oppressive cult.
So, as a member of two Unitarian Universalist congregations, and as a former Mormon with direct knowledge of exactly how conservative religions operate, I demand that you stop this strong advocacy for one single other religion. Stick to your own creedless church. But don’t try and dictate to me, as a UU member, what I should think or believe about Islam, their child raping prophet, or their violence advocating holy book.
A good place for you to start your recovery from strong advocacy for Islam would be via checking out the following key authors:
Dr. Sam Harris, who has debated Reza Aslan several times. Reza really becomes incredibly agitated and angry when he encounters Dr. Harris. Reza shows that he is not a very scholarly person when he does this. Also Mr. Aslan recently came to Utah and he spoke fawningly of Mormonism – showing that he knows nothing about nor the pain it causes people. And this type of response from Aslan shows one problem liberal religionists have with understanding exactly what conservative religion is like on the inside. You really have no concept of what really goes on in Islam nor in Mormonism nor in other conservative religions and your unquestioning support for Islam in this case and your fluffy claim that “all paths lead to the divine and are of equal value” is another. It’s a lie. Not all paths help humans thrive. Some paths are more abusive than others. Dr. Harris author of the recent book The Moral Landscape.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali – a woman who escaped an arranged marriage in Somalia. She worked with Theo Van Gogh on a film critical of Islam’s treatment of women. As a result she now is forced to live with constant security protection. She’s an author & she’s also spoken a lot about the problems with Islam. Note that she is an ex-Muslim. If she came to a UU Church would her experience as an ex-Muslim be honored, or would you try to silence her? I bet you’d do the latter, as per your inappropriately fawning statements in favor of Islam & it’s child raping prophet.
Key people on these points spoke at the Secular Islam Summit. Here's one key video with Tawfik Hamid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxfo11A7XuA
Here are some additional cutting edge thinkers on the issue of honesty, human well being & thriving, and the true nature of religion: Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, and Richard Dawkins.
Response to observation 5, regarding a complete lack of response from the SVUUS about their five week religious education course for teens on Islam.
Apparently the death of 3,000 Americans on 9/11, deaths caused directly by well educated men who were infected with the widespread memetic virus of suicide-advocating-Islam, has caused some controversy, and fear on the left regarding a willingness to be honest and open. Not responding at all to my requests for information shows great fear about any desire to have honest and open discussions about the true nature of Islam.
Before 9/11 what did we know of the hijab or nijab, or of who was a kafir or not, or of what meat is halal or not? Nothing. And frankly I still don’t want to know, expect that I don’t want anyone to be oppressed. And clearly as per Afghanistan and 9/11, when people are allowed to wallow in misery, they will lash out. 9/11 was such a lashing out (and it was an indirect request for help), and our response should now be to stop the oppression that caused angry people to lash out and to do murderous things.
No country has an inherent right to oppress their own people. And Stockholm Syndrome gender apartheid warped men & women can not be trusted to properly evaluate their own situation, just as a girl kept in a basement for 20 years & raped by her father cannot either. When angry crazed people lash out and kill 3,000, that shows the folly of standing by while their lives are being destroyed, destroyed in this case by a highly prevalent & pervasive form of Islam.
In our connected world we can now see exactly how bronze age cultures operate, as they stone adulterers and gays, as they forcibly veil and bag women, and as they drive men to suicide because of gender apartheid. These key elements of Islamic culture are all Islamic. And yes, so is the very very small minority of liberal mosques in America that don’t force the veil, and which don’t force gender apartheid. It’s both. Not one.
Your key lie in this matter is that the whole of Islam is represented by the very small number of American mosques that don’t oppress women & men & which don’t engage in gender apartheid. But your claim is a lie. And the lack of a response on this issue from SVUUS shows that you, at the very least, suspect, you’re lying as a means of covering up your true motives: your hatred for Bush’s actions in Iraq and your attempt to make amends by repeating the UUSC/UUA lie that: Islam is beautiful, and that Islam is a religion of peace.
Response to observation 6, regarding your unwavering and unquestioning and uncritical support for the Ground Zero Mega Mosque.
Maybe the proposed mosque won’t enforce gender apartheid. Maybe they won’t force the veil. But it’s also true that in other Islamic countries, a big huge mosque so close to Ground Zero will be seen as a triumph – as a key victory.
Symbolism does matter. And when 9/11 families express their outrage on this issue, you, the UUA, and the UUSC are not being all that kind nor nice to the victims of 9/11. Your level of “respect” doesn’t seem to extend to victims of a terror attack, an attack directly caused by one very prominent form of Islam. Go and listen to the ex-Islamists I’ve referenced on the Center for Inquiry’s website. Listen to them for yourself. Read Ayan Hirsi Ali.
You, in your fluffy pseudo-religion have no concept of what life is like in a real hard core religion and it shows.
Here’s some quotes from cultural & religious Muslims who were against the mosque:
From Ibn Warraq, founder of the Institute for the Secularization of Islamic Society, and fellow of the Center for Inquiry:
"Perhaps readers of the CFI Free Thinking Blog can help me out. At the time of the South Park Affair, and even earlier going right back to The Rushdie Affair, I was a staunch supporter of Salman Rushdie and the cartoonists and their First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech, and scoffed at the tender sensibilities of the Muslims. Now, with Imam Rauf's intention to build an Islamic Center just 600 feet from Ground Zero in Manhattan, I began by arguing that the feelings of the families and colleagues of those who lost their lives on 11 September, 2001 should be respected, and that the Islamic Center should be opposed, and then I realized that perhaps I was being inconsistent. Are the two cases similar? Am I being inconsistent? I have, since that realization, concentrated on gathering material against Imam Rauf, and have enough evidence- I had to wade through two of his books, one with 210 pages and the other with 314 page to gather it- to show that he is not a moderate at all. And still, moderate or not, Imam Rauf has the right to build his Islamic Center. For me far from being a symbol of tolerance, the Islamic center is a symbol of Islamic triumphalism. If Rauf truly wanted to build bridges, as he claimed, then he has failed in a spectacular way. If the Center is ever built, then I do not ever want to hear anyone talking about the hurt sensibilities of Muslims again." -quote ends
And here’s some quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park51#Muslims
------------------------ quote begins
Another founding member of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, Zuhdi Jasser, who is also the founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, a group of Muslim professionals in the Phoenix Valley of Arizona, strongly opposed the mosque, saying:
"For us, a mosque was always a place to pray ... not a way to make an ostentatious architectural statement. Ground Zero shouldn't be about promoting Islam. It's the place where war was declared on us as Americans."
He in addition said:
"American freedom of religion is a right, but … it is not right to make one's religion a global political statement with a towering Islamic edifice that casts a shadow over the memorials of Ground Zero. … Islamists in 'moderate' disguise are still Islamists. In their own more subtle ways, the WTC mosque organizers end up serving the same aims (as) separatist and supremacist wings of political Islam."
Neda Bolourchi, a Muslim whose mother died in 9/11, said: "I fear it would become a symbol of victory for militant Muslims around the world."
Authors Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, board members of the Muslim Canadian Congress, said:
New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it's not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshipers. We Muslims know ... this mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith, ... as 'Fitna,' meaning 'mischief-making' that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.... As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens, and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain."
Akbar Ahmed, Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies at American University, while noting that blaming all Muslims for 9/11 was "ridiculous", said:
"I don't think the Muslim leadership has fully appreciated the impact of 9/11 on America. They assume Americans have forgotten 9/11 and even, in a profound way, forgiven 9/11, and that has not happened. The wounds remain largely open .... and when wounds are raw, an episode like constructing a house of worship ... even one protected by the Constitution, protected by law ... becomes like salt in the wounds."
Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid, general manager of Al-Arabiya television, also criticized the project in a column titled "A House of Worship or a Symbol of Destruction?" in the Arab daily A-Sharq Al-Awsat, saying:
"Muslims do not aspire for a mosque next to the September 11 cemetery ... the mosque is not an issue for Muslims, and they have not heard of it until the shouting became loud between the supporters and the objectors, which is mostly an argument between non-Muslim US citizens!"
Rima Fakih, the first Muslim-American crowned Miss USA as Miss USA 2010, opposed the mosque on the grounds of it being insensitive to families of 9/11 victims, telling Inside Edition:
"I totally agree with President Obama with the statement on the constitutional rights of freedom of religion. But it shouldn't be so close to the World Trade Center. We should be more concerned with the tragedy than religion..."
------------------------ quote ends regarding Muslims who opposed the Ground Zero Mega Mosque
-------------------------------------------.
Perhaps at this point, the condescending relativist Ivory Tower enshrined fluffy highfalutin-speak-that-means-nothing type of response is about to come back to me from you, such as via saying “things were different back then in Mohammad’s day.” Yes they were, but how far are you willing to go with your relativism to justify rape & murder? Mohammad raped a 9 year old, and he wrote a ghoulish bloodthirsty “holy book” which has been a bane upon humanity ever since. Can you add these key facts to your fawning pages on Islam please?
There’s some similarities between Mohammad and Joseph Smith. Both claimed to receive revelation from their god. But Mohammad was directly responsible for a lot more deaths, and his holy book is more bloodthirsty than Joseph’s.
Not everything in life should be addressed in the type of anally retentive fluffy & condescending tonality that seems to infect quite a large number Unitarian Universalist ministers. Sometimes it’s more important to speak frankly, about life, and to frank and honest assessments about where things stand.
Does UUism stand with murders, rapists, conquerors, and sociopaths?
If you stand with Mohammad and his religion then this is where you stand.
Previously it was only within Islamic schools where people were to told that Mohammad was a great man in an unquestioning and fawning type way.
But now, thanks to your morally vacuous stance, a stance that is firmly rooted in the relativist cancer that infects the Ivory Tower, you’re now teaching the same unquestioning view of Mohammad & Islam in your churches, in my churches (if being a member of a UU church means anything).
Stick to what you know: A generally positive stance toward social justice and doing good.
But I do fear that you still cannot comprehend what I am saying.
When Islamists can subvert liberalism via having people like you considering Islam to be a human race when it’s not, and Islam to be of peace when it’s not, and Islam to be beautiful when it’s founder was a raping murderer, it shows you need to go back and do your homework.
I request and (rightly as a UU member) demand that you alter your websites and your religious curricula to accurately reflect what the true situation is, relative to what Mohammad really said in his bloodthirsty holy book, about women, about non-believers, and about everyone, and relative to what Mohammad did to a nine year old little girl. Maybe if you’re willing to be honest then the words “social justice” can really be ascribed to your groups again. But until then, you’re just saying a bunch of rather dangerous lies in response to and to apologize for the Unitarian-sins of Bush.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
-----------------end of quote of my letter
This issue is especially relevant to some secular advocates (atheists/humanists/naturalists/etc.) as sometimes we sometimes show up to UU meetings for social support.
_____________________.
November 30, 2010
To the following parties:
Unitarian Universalist Service Committee (UUSC), 689 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139-3302
Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA), 25 Beacon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02108
South Valley Unitarian Universalist Society (SVUUS), 6876 South Highland Drive, Cottonwood Heights, Utah 84121
First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City, 569 South 1300 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102
Greetings,
This letter concerns Unitarian Universalism’s appreciation of and approach to Islam. Here is what I have observed:
Observation 1:
Children being told about Mohammad (the prophet of Islam) in glowing and appreciative terms, during the “children’s teaching time” at the service of the SVUUS.
Observation 2:
Being told at the SVUUS service that when Islam was first starting, women had more rights and they had a lot of freedoms. We were also told that Islam is a beautiful and peaceful religion, and that Mohammad was a great man. This declaration occurred just a few weeks ago at the SVUUS congregational meeting, when a special five week long religious education course on Islam was announced for teens.
Observation 3:
The UUSC having on their web site direct links to Islamic religious curricula, curricula which claims without question, that Mohammad received a revelation from a god. The following [now archived] UUSC website links directly to, without any disclaimer, religious education material offered by the American Islamic Congress.
Building Bridges Toolkit:
http://web.archive.org/web/20120519235021/http://www.uusc.org/buildingbridges/toolkit
"When Society Seeks Unity: Religious Pluralism," by Rev. Paul Beckel:
https://web.archive.org/web/20041023005721/http://uuwausau.org/society.html
Hannah Petrie info: http://web.archive.org/web/20200409145025/https://www.cedarsuuchurch.org/?p=876
Observation 4:
On the UUSC website there is a religious education document which states the following:
“…Muslims are a part of our local and global communities. Their struggles are our own…”
“…Islam is a complex and beautiful faith…”
Also the document in question heavily references the work of Reza Aslan.
Document link:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150322110533/http://www.isna.net/uploads/1/5/7/4/15744382/uu_muslim_interfaith_guide.pdf
previously at (http://www.uua.org/documents/washingtonoffice/uu_muslim_interfaith_guide.pdf)
Observation 5:
I requested from SVUUS, both via email and paper letter further information about the special five week course on Islam to be given to teens. No response was received.
Observation 6:
The UUA and the UUSC have issued a joint statement in support of the proposed Ground Zero Mosque.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130130143726/http://www.uusc.org/content/uusc_uua_declare_support_lower_manhattan_mosque
Before I respond to each point, allow me to give you some background:
My name is on the member books of both Unitarian congregations in the Salt Lake valley, for what it’s worth. I am an ex-Mormon. I spent 25 years as a strong believing Mormon. I was a Mormon missionary, temple worker, and Sunday school president. After leaving Mormonism I have had strong associations with several people within the exmormon movement, such as Dr. Simon Southerton, a former Mormon Bishop from Australia and DNA scientist. Dr. Southerton wrote a book about how DNA evidence shows that the people of the Book of Mormon did not come from Israel in 600 BCE. I also frequently attend the yearly Exmormon Foundation conferences in Salt Lake City. And, as is common for many people who leave Mormonism I have drafted a lengthy exit journal, which is available at the following URLs:
http://tinyurl.com/5dbe36
or http://corvus.freeshell.org in the “life path” section.
When I first encountered Unitarianism I found that it tended to be a place where people who had left more conservative religions tended to congregate. UUism tended to serve as a social support system for people in that situation. Thus outside of Utah usually it’s the ex-Catholics and maybe ex-Baptists who go. But in Utah at both Salt Lake congregations there are many exmormons who go.
And now here is my response to each observational point noted earlier:
Response to observation 1, regarding children in UUism being taught about Mohammad in a glowing and fawning way:
Mohammad was not Jesus and he was not Buddha. Jesus may have been a mythical person or he may have been real. But regardless, and in general, the teachings of Jesus were indeed more peaceful than those of Mohammad.
Buddha’s teachings were also infinitely more peaceful than those of Mohammad.
It is simply inappropriate for a religion which prides itself on “social justice” and on “civil rights” to glowingly, fawningly, and uncritically advocate for and on behalf of the founding prophet of Islam.
It just so happens that not everything is equal. Not all religions are equal. Religion is like the word “sport.” Badminton is not very comparable to rugby for example, except that all of the players are breathing when they play. And the same goes for the word religion. Stating or claiming that “all paths to the divine are of equal value,” this type of view, when it is expressed by the UUSC, sounds very much like a creed for a supposedly creedless church. You are making a position statement, and a claim about facts & real people, and your claims have bearing on the ability of people to thrive and be happy.
No, not all paths to the “divine” are of equal value. The path of the suicide bomber is not as equally valid as the path of the Buddhist monk to goes into a cave for 5 years to meditate, nor to that of a Jainist who filters his water through cheese cloth so as to avoid eating insects. The path of the genitally mutilating African tribal Islamic mother or Jewish moil are not as equally valid as those who reject child mutilation. And so on. Is this question really so difficult for you?
Regarding Mohammad specifically, what did the man do?
He advocated for the death of people who refused to convert.
He married a six year old and consummated that marriage when she was nine. There are several references to this fact on the Wikipedia page about Mohammad. And while in the past the claim of Wikipedia being largely the work of inaccurate chaos when it was first starting, that claim is no longer valid as per the hordes of extremely fastidious people who now operate the site on a volunteer basis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#Wives_and_children
…and check out reference numbers 53 through 58 on that page.
Mohammad clearly did engage in polygamy. Is this a pro-woman stance?
Mohammad wrote a rather bloodthirsty book known as the Quran, which advocates death and torture for all sorts of people. References the Skeptics Annotated Quran for great detail on this point: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm
Because of the scope of Unitarian Universalism’s fawning and unquestioning support for Islam, I am going to quote in this letter directly from commentary notes about passages in Mohammad’s holy book the Quran. As you read the following notes about passages in his book, consider your claim that “all paths to the divine are equally valid.” And consider the validity of teaching children in a fawning way about just how great and wonderful Mohammad, the author of the following words, was and is:
From the Skeptics Annotated Quran website - notes about passages in the Quran
[in the letter I quote fully from
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/women/long.html
and http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html
]
Response to observation 2, regarding the claim by the SVUUS special five week long course on Islam for teenagers, and in response to the course preparers who claimed that early Islam (during & shortly after Mohammad’s time) was more friendly to women:
Does polygamy and the rape of a nine year old represent a pro-woman stance? Ample and readily available documentation regarding the life of Mohammad shows that he not only engaged in polygamy he also raped his nine year “wife.”
Are these actions by Mohammad “pro-woman?”
Is the widespread practice of polygamy in Islam “pro-woman?”
Is forcing a six year old into an arranged marriage, and then raping her at age nine – are these actions “pro-woman?”
Haven’t you bothered to do your research? Has Unitarianism gone so far off the rails as to claim outright lies about the life of Mohammad, and what Islam stands for, in large part?
Response to observation 3, regarding the UUSC’s fawning and direct connection to the American Islamic Congress.
Is it common for Unitarianism to have direct weblinks to the religious curricula of other religions? Why not also link to Mormon and Catholic curricula?
For example, since “all paths to the divine are of equal value,” as you appear to plainly claim on the UUSC website, may I suggest that you link to pages regarding Mormon doctrine which states that oral sex is not ordained of god, and that masturbation is a sin akin to murder (and as is sex outside of marriage & homosexual sex), or that Elohim (god the father) had literal sex with Mary the mother of Jesus? Or to the Catholic doctrine stating that all forms of birth control are evil, and that Catholic priests who rape children en masse should be protected from the law and “pitied” rather than punished.
Or how about you start linking to the Scientology doctrine of alien influence over humankind influence which must be overcome through many payments to Scientology teachers over the course of several years, or their advocacy for locking away your family members so they can be part of the “Sea Org?”
You’re violating your principle of having a “creedless church” by having direct links to the religious education texts of another religion – where those other directly linked to pages (by the American Islamic Congress) claim unquestionably that Mohammad received a revelation from his god AKA the god of Islam.
You are now directly linking UUism with Islam, and making UUism essentially a sect of Islam. Will you be doing the same for Catholicism, Mormonism, and Scientology? If not, why not? What makes Islam so special that you would find it necessary to provide direct links to the religious education texts of another religion?
Response to observation 4, regarding the claims that “…Muslims are a part of our local and global communities. Their struggles are our own…” and “…Islam is a complex and beautiful faith…,” and a strong unquestioning advocacy for the work of Reza Aslan.
Here we see again the Unitarian singularly unique appreciation for Islam above other religions. Do you also claim that Scientology is a complex & beautiful faith? How about Mormonism? How about Catholicism? How about the Branch Dividianism, or Hale-Bop-ism?
I have come to conclude that your incredibly one sided and uncritically fawning appreciation for Islam comes from one source: Your hatred for the war in Iraq, and a similar hatred which is now extending to the war in Afghanistan.
If you hate those wars, then the religion of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan must therefore be peaceful and beautiful, right?
But what do the founding texts of Islam say, about life, about women, about sex, about violence, and about those who refuse to believe? What do they plainly and clearly say?
Do you call the rape of a nine year old by Mohammad beautiful?
Do you consider the gender apartheid that is rampant and strongly advocated by countless Imams in Islam to be beautiful? A type of apartheid that warps the minds of the boys in Islam, so they have no idea how to properly socialize or to please women, & an apartheid drives the young men to suicide? Reference the videos made during the Secular Islam conference available on the website of the Center for Inquiry (www.centerforinquiry.net). Also is gender apartheid beautiful which warps girl’s minds, so they come to learn to love being bagged from head to toe Stockholm Syndrome style?
Is a faith (Islam) which drove well educated middle class men fly two airplanes into the twin towers in New York, resulting in the death of 3,000 Americans, and many thousands of collateral deaths in Iraq because of Bush’s reactions & possible overreactions? Is that faith beautiful, marvelous, and well worth fawning about to our children and to the UU church membership as a whole?
Is a faith which has as it’s founding text great advocacy for bloodthirsty violence beautiful?
And since you consider the “struggles of Islam” to be your struggle, or our struggle, do you include the struggles of the Taliban and of Hamas? How about the struggles of Osama Bin Ladin, or of the middle class Muslim adherents who killed 3,000 people on 9/11? How about the struggles of the road side bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan, as they plant bombs to kill American soldiers? Are the struggles of these Islamic adherents yours also? Are you asking their struggles to be mine?
Let me say that your complete support for Mohammad and his church results in the following: You all have completely forsaken key Unitarian Universalist principles with this response of yours to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Your hatred for Bush and his cohorts has driven you insane. When you heard from Bush’s Whitehouse the claim that “we make our own reality” – you poo pooed their claims as outrageous. But when you do the same by claiming that Islam is something it is not, you are doing the same. You are stating a lie, and then calling your lie the truth. That is doublespeak. And apparently liberals can engage in it just as much as conservatives can.
The bottom line is that it is most important to be honest.
Islam is both a religion of peace and a religion of human spirit destroying gender apartheid.
Islam is both a source of comfort for fluffy American women who convert to the extremely rare even in America non-veil-imposing non-gender-apartheid-imposing form of Islam, and a source of great and huge pain to the little girls in Afghanistan who get acid thrown in their face because they want to learn.
Islam is at very a different point in it’s history compared to Christianity. Christianity had a Reformation and an Enlightenment. Islam has not, or it’s having one or now – but only with our help. But it will only have a proper and true and full reformation if we are willing to be fully honest.
What you have on your websites is not honesty. It’s basically a bunch of lies about Islam. And it shows an inappropriate connection between Islam and Unitarian Universalism.
Since, traditionally, Unitarian Universalism has been a place where people could come for support when they leave other religions, consider how these actions of yours will hurt and damage those who leave Islam and want to come to UUism for support:
It will undercut them.
It will deny them a better path to recovery.
It will deny & seek to suppress the true & honest life experiences of those who have left Islam.
It will deny them a good opportunity to be intellectually and emotionally honest, and to be psychologically adult.
What if on your websites you made the same claims about Mormonism, and said that Mormonism was a complex and beautiful faith? You would subvert and undercut the path of exmormons who come to UUism to find solace and support - to find a way out of an oppressive cult.
So, as a member of two Unitarian Universalist congregations, and as a former Mormon with direct knowledge of exactly how conservative religions operate, I demand that you stop this strong advocacy for one single other religion. Stick to your own creedless church. But don’t try and dictate to me, as a UU member, what I should think or believe about Islam, their child raping prophet, or their violence advocating holy book.
A good place for you to start your recovery from strong advocacy for Islam would be via checking out the following key authors:
Dr. Sam Harris, who has debated Reza Aslan several times. Reza really becomes incredibly agitated and angry when he encounters Dr. Harris. Reza shows that he is not a very scholarly person when he does this. Also Mr. Aslan recently came to Utah and he spoke fawningly of Mormonism – showing that he knows nothing about nor the pain it causes people. And this type of response from Aslan shows one problem liberal religionists have with understanding exactly what conservative religion is like on the inside. You really have no concept of what really goes on in Islam nor in Mormonism nor in other conservative religions and your unquestioning support for Islam in this case and your fluffy claim that “all paths lead to the divine and are of equal value” is another. It’s a lie. Not all paths help humans thrive. Some paths are more abusive than others. Dr. Harris author of the recent book The Moral Landscape.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali – a woman who escaped an arranged marriage in Somalia. She worked with Theo Van Gogh on a film critical of Islam’s treatment of women. As a result she now is forced to live with constant security protection. She’s an author & she’s also spoken a lot about the problems with Islam. Note that she is an ex-Muslim. If she came to a UU Church would her experience as an ex-Muslim be honored, or would you try to silence her? I bet you’d do the latter, as per your inappropriately fawning statements in favor of Islam & it’s child raping prophet.
Key people on these points spoke at the Secular Islam Summit. Here's one key video with Tawfik Hamid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxfo11A7XuA
Here are some additional cutting edge thinkers on the issue of honesty, human well being & thriving, and the true nature of religion: Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, and Richard Dawkins.
Response to observation 5, regarding a complete lack of response from the SVUUS about their five week religious education course for teens on Islam.
Apparently the death of 3,000 Americans on 9/11, deaths caused directly by well educated men who were infected with the widespread memetic virus of suicide-advocating-Islam, has caused some controversy, and fear on the left regarding a willingness to be honest and open. Not responding at all to my requests for information shows great fear about any desire to have honest and open discussions about the true nature of Islam.
Before 9/11 what did we know of the hijab or nijab, or of who was a kafir or not, or of what meat is halal or not? Nothing. And frankly I still don’t want to know, expect that I don’t want anyone to be oppressed. And clearly as per Afghanistan and 9/11, when people are allowed to wallow in misery, they will lash out. 9/11 was such a lashing out (and it was an indirect request for help), and our response should now be to stop the oppression that caused angry people to lash out and to do murderous things.
No country has an inherent right to oppress their own people. And Stockholm Syndrome gender apartheid warped men & women can not be trusted to properly evaluate their own situation, just as a girl kept in a basement for 20 years & raped by her father cannot either. When angry crazed people lash out and kill 3,000, that shows the folly of standing by while their lives are being destroyed, destroyed in this case by a highly prevalent & pervasive form of Islam.
In our connected world we can now see exactly how bronze age cultures operate, as they stone adulterers and gays, as they forcibly veil and bag women, and as they drive men to suicide because of gender apartheid. These key elements of Islamic culture are all Islamic. And yes, so is the very very small minority of liberal mosques in America that don’t force the veil, and which don’t force gender apartheid. It’s both. Not one.
Your key lie in this matter is that the whole of Islam is represented by the very small number of American mosques that don’t oppress women & men & which don’t engage in gender apartheid. But your claim is a lie. And the lack of a response on this issue from SVUUS shows that you, at the very least, suspect, you’re lying as a means of covering up your true motives: your hatred for Bush’s actions in Iraq and your attempt to make amends by repeating the UUSC/UUA lie that: Islam is beautiful, and that Islam is a religion of peace.
Response to observation 6, regarding your unwavering and unquestioning and uncritical support for the Ground Zero Mega Mosque.
Maybe the proposed mosque won’t enforce gender apartheid. Maybe they won’t force the veil. But it’s also true that in other Islamic countries, a big huge mosque so close to Ground Zero will be seen as a triumph – as a key victory.
Symbolism does matter. And when 9/11 families express their outrage on this issue, you, the UUA, and the UUSC are not being all that kind nor nice to the victims of 9/11. Your level of “respect” doesn’t seem to extend to victims of a terror attack, an attack directly caused by one very prominent form of Islam. Go and listen to the ex-Islamists I’ve referenced on the Center for Inquiry’s website. Listen to them for yourself. Read Ayan Hirsi Ali.
You, in your fluffy pseudo-religion have no concept of what life is like in a real hard core religion and it shows.
Here’s some quotes from cultural & religious Muslims who were against the mosque:
From Ibn Warraq, founder of the Institute for the Secularization of Islamic Society, and fellow of the Center for Inquiry:
"Perhaps readers of the CFI Free Thinking Blog can help me out. At the time of the South Park Affair, and even earlier going right back to The Rushdie Affair, I was a staunch supporter of Salman Rushdie and the cartoonists and their First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech, and scoffed at the tender sensibilities of the Muslims. Now, with Imam Rauf's intention to build an Islamic Center just 600 feet from Ground Zero in Manhattan, I began by arguing that the feelings of the families and colleagues of those who lost their lives on 11 September, 2001 should be respected, and that the Islamic Center should be opposed, and then I realized that perhaps I was being inconsistent. Are the two cases similar? Am I being inconsistent? I have, since that realization, concentrated on gathering material against Imam Rauf, and have enough evidence- I had to wade through two of his books, one with 210 pages and the other with 314 page to gather it- to show that he is not a moderate at all. And still, moderate or not, Imam Rauf has the right to build his Islamic Center. For me far from being a symbol of tolerance, the Islamic center is a symbol of Islamic triumphalism. If Rauf truly wanted to build bridges, as he claimed, then he has failed in a spectacular way. If the Center is ever built, then I do not ever want to hear anyone talking about the hurt sensibilities of Muslims again." -quote ends
And here’s some quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park51#Muslims
------------------------ quote begins
Another founding member of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, Zuhdi Jasser, who is also the founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, a group of Muslim professionals in the Phoenix Valley of Arizona, strongly opposed the mosque, saying:
"For us, a mosque was always a place to pray ... not a way to make an ostentatious architectural statement. Ground Zero shouldn't be about promoting Islam. It's the place where war was declared on us as Americans."
He in addition said:
"American freedom of religion is a right, but … it is not right to make one's religion a global political statement with a towering Islamic edifice that casts a shadow over the memorials of Ground Zero. … Islamists in 'moderate' disguise are still Islamists. In their own more subtle ways, the WTC mosque organizers end up serving the same aims (as) separatist and supremacist wings of political Islam."
Neda Bolourchi, a Muslim whose mother died in 9/11, said: "I fear it would become a symbol of victory for militant Muslims around the world."
Authors Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, board members of the Muslim Canadian Congress, said:
New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it's not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshipers. We Muslims know ... this mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith, ... as 'Fitna,' meaning 'mischief-making' that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.... As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens, and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain."
Akbar Ahmed, Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies at American University, while noting that blaming all Muslims for 9/11 was "ridiculous", said:
"I don't think the Muslim leadership has fully appreciated the impact of 9/11 on America. They assume Americans have forgotten 9/11 and even, in a profound way, forgiven 9/11, and that has not happened. The wounds remain largely open .... and when wounds are raw, an episode like constructing a house of worship ... even one protected by the Constitution, protected by law ... becomes like salt in the wounds."
Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid, general manager of Al-Arabiya television, also criticized the project in a column titled "A House of Worship or a Symbol of Destruction?" in the Arab daily A-Sharq Al-Awsat, saying:
"Muslims do not aspire for a mosque next to the September 11 cemetery ... the mosque is not an issue for Muslims, and they have not heard of it until the shouting became loud between the supporters and the objectors, which is mostly an argument between non-Muslim US citizens!"
Rima Fakih, the first Muslim-American crowned Miss USA as Miss USA 2010, opposed the mosque on the grounds of it being insensitive to families of 9/11 victims, telling Inside Edition:
"I totally agree with President Obama with the statement on the constitutional rights of freedom of religion. But it shouldn't be so close to the World Trade Center. We should be more concerned with the tragedy than religion..."
------------------------ quote ends regarding Muslims who opposed the Ground Zero Mega Mosque
-------------------------------------------.
Perhaps at this point, the condescending relativist Ivory Tower enshrined fluffy highfalutin-speak-that-means-nothing type of response is about to come back to me from you, such as via saying “things were different back then in Mohammad’s day.” Yes they were, but how far are you willing to go with your relativism to justify rape & murder? Mohammad raped a 9 year old, and he wrote a ghoulish bloodthirsty “holy book” which has been a bane upon humanity ever since. Can you add these key facts to your fawning pages on Islam please?
There’s some similarities between Mohammad and Joseph Smith. Both claimed to receive revelation from their god. But Mohammad was directly responsible for a lot more deaths, and his holy book is more bloodthirsty than Joseph’s.
Not everything in life should be addressed in the type of anally retentive fluffy & condescending tonality that seems to infect quite a large number Unitarian Universalist ministers. Sometimes it’s more important to speak frankly, about life, and to frank and honest assessments about where things stand.
Does UUism stand with murders, rapists, conquerors, and sociopaths?
If you stand with Mohammad and his religion then this is where you stand.
Previously it was only within Islamic schools where people were to told that Mohammad was a great man in an unquestioning and fawning type way.
But now, thanks to your morally vacuous stance, a stance that is firmly rooted in the relativist cancer that infects the Ivory Tower, you’re now teaching the same unquestioning view of Mohammad & Islam in your churches, in my churches (if being a member of a UU church means anything).
Stick to what you know: A generally positive stance toward social justice and doing good.
But I do fear that you still cannot comprehend what I am saying.
When Islamists can subvert liberalism via having people like you considering Islam to be a human race when it’s not, and Islam to be of peace when it’s not, and Islam to be beautiful when it’s founder was a raping murderer, it shows you need to go back and do your homework.
I request and (rightly as a UU member) demand that you alter your websites and your religious curricula to accurately reflect what the true situation is, relative to what Mohammad really said in his bloodthirsty holy book, about women, about non-believers, and about everyone, and relative to what Mohammad did to a nine year old little girl. Maybe if you’re willing to be honest then the words “social justice” can really be ascribed to your groups again. But until then, you’re just saying a bunch of rather dangerous lies in response to and to apologize for the Unitarian-sins of Bush.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
-----------------end of quote of my letter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)