Copy of December 2, 2010 email sent to Wisconsin Public Radio:
To: ttbook at wpr.org
Cc: Listener at wpr.org, gene.purcell at ecb.org, John Greene <jgreene at kuer.org>, jmcalpine at americanpublicmedia.org, esweeney at kcpw.org
Regarding the radio program "To the Best of Our Knowledge," and the Templeton Foundation: their subversion of State connected & supported public radio, science, and reason. And also regarding Krista Tippett & her program, as her program is also funded by Templeton.
To: Wisconsin Public Radio
Cc: To relevant stations playing Templeton Foundation funded programs including "To the Best of Our Knowledge," and Krista Tippett's faith program, whatever it's now called.
---------------------
Greetings,
I have had the misfortune to listen to some of your recent programs on science and religion. Toward the end of one show I was horrified to hear that you are allowing your show to be funded by the Templeton Foundation. You fawningly and glowingly boasted about this funding source.
For the past several days I've been listening to the unabridged audio book version of "The Moral Landscape" by Dr. Sam Harris. Dr. Harris says of Templeton that they fund people & groups like yours so that you will "split the difference between intellectual integrity and the fantasies of a prior age." And yet we see that you are tied to a public university. Are you not aware of the required separation of church and state?
Is your program really the BEST of human knowledge? If your ready to take money from Templeton, the answer must always be no, because they will pressure you to find ONE answer, the "answer" of non-overlapping magesteria. They will also require that you water down any criticism of religion, and that you conflate the separation between debunked & absurd mysticism and actual science & intellectually honest reason. What has the highest probability of being true? The mystical claims of religion, or the facts that science yields? Your program repeatedly burs the line and pretends that everything is equal.
Here are relevant quotes from Sam Harris's most recent book about the problem at hand:
"...Here is our situation: if the basic claims of religion are true, the scientific worldview is so blinkered and susceptible to supernatural modification as to be rendered nearly ridiculous; if the basic claims of religion are false, most people are profoundly confused about the nature of reality, confounded by irrational hopes and fears, and tending to waste precious time and attention -- often with tragic results. ... It makes no sense at all to have the most important features of our lives anchored to divisive claims about the unique sanctity of ancient books or to rumors of ancient miracles. There is simply no question that how we speak about human values -- and how we study or fail to study the relevant phenomena at the level of the brain -- will profoundly influence our collective future."
In "The Moral Landscape" Dr. Harris does rightly criticize the Templeton Foundation. Here's a related quote from a letter exchange he had with another science writer, as from http://www.project-reason.org/archive/item/what_should_science_dosam_harris_v_philip_ball/
From Dr. Harris:
"...Of course, intellectual apathy on the part of individual scientists and their leading journals would be a bad thing all on its own, but add to this the advocacy of organizations like the Templeton Foundation, which uses its 1.5 billion dollar endowment to carefully blur the line between reason and faith, and the effect is an almost a total ceding of the argument in favor of religion...
...The Templeton Foundation’s work is quite a bit more insidious (and clever) than funding marginal research, or even obscenely silly projects like Collins’ BioLogos Foundation. Two examples of their work should suffice:
1. http://www.templeton.org/evolution/
2. http://www.templetonprize.org/currentwinner.html
Templeton’s recent advertisement about evolution (1. above), which appeared in almost every major newspaper and magazine in the United States, represents a very clever manipulation of scientific opinion. When faced with the question 'Does Evolution Explain Human Nature?' even I would have said something like 'Not entirely.' Of course, Templeton knows that most people will only read the titles of these essays. The general effect of the page is to communicate the inadequacy of evolutionary theory and the perpetual incompleteness of science—and to encourage readers to draw the further the inference that one needs religion/faith to get all the way home to the Truth. It is an especially nice touch that the one unequivocal 'Yes' comes from the journalist Robert Wright, who has become a committed apologist for religion. (Leave it to Francis Collins to deliver the eminently reasonable, 'Not entirely.') Thus, whichever door one opens in this fun house of obfuscation, one finds a message that is comforting to religion. An earlier ad entitled 'Does the Universe Have a Purpose?' played the same game with a carefully picked sample of respondents. Out of 12 responses, only two were direct answers of 'No.' Glancing at the ad, one could only conclude that atheism must be a minority opinion in science. These ads amount to religious propaganda, pure and simple..."
---end of quote from Harris
Further key notes about the problems with the Templeton Foundation come from letters by Anthony Grayling and Daniel Dennett, as from http://richarddawkins.net/articles/3973
From Anthony Grayling:
"...Dear Mr Cartlidge
Thank you for your message. I hope you will understand that this is by no means directed at you personally, but I don't engage in Templeton-associated matters.
I cannot agree with the Templeton Foundation's project of trying to make religion respectable by conflating it with science; this is like mixing astrology with astronomy or voodoo with medical research, and I disapprove of
Templeton's use of its great wealth to bribe compliance with this project.
Templeton is to all intents and purposes a propaganda organisation for religious outlooks..."
From Daniel Dennett:
"...I have had my say about materialism and the persistent attempt by religious spokespeople to muddy the waters by claiming, without a shred of support, that materialism (in the sense I have defended for my entire career) is any obstacle to meaning, or to an ethical life—see, e.g., BREAKING THE SPELL, pp302-307."
"I see no reason to go over that ground again, and I particularly don't want to convey the impression, by participating in an interview with you, that this is, for me, a live issue. It is not. If you had said that you were studying the views of scientists, philosophers and, say, choreographers on this topic, I would at least be curious about what expertise choreographers could bring to it. If you had said scientists, philosophers, and astrologers, I would not even have replied to your invitation. The only reason I am replying is to let you know that I disapprove of the Templeton Foundation's attempt to tie theologians to the coat tails of scientists and philosophers who actually do have expertise on this topic..."
------ end of quote
Here's a related video by Nobel prize winner Harry Kroto where he criticizes Templeton:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDiUsINryY0
Also relevant interaction about Templeton between scientists starts at time index 1:24:00 on the video at http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-science-religion-reason-and-survival/session-8-1
...and at time index 1:31:40 Richard Dawkins states that John Templeton is a billionaire who's used his billions to subvert science.
Is that what the University of Wisconsin is about? Subverting science?
And here's comments from P.Z. Myers about Templeton:
"...How about an institution that hands out large grants with the expectation that the work will help reconcile science and religion, or that it will actually find evidence of a deity? I'd class that with my third group, the funding source that wants a particular conclusion and can't be trusted to be scrupulous about following the evidence where ever it may lead. They have an agenda, and it is one of the most corrupting and untrustworthy causes of all, religion."
... as from
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/the_templeton_conundrum.php
So, we see that we do have, as per Dawkins, Harris, Kroto, Dennett, Grayling, and Myers: Religious propaganda from the Templeton Foundation, a subversion of science, and a promotion of religion via propaganda.
And yet you fawningly express your great appreciation for receiving money from very clever religious propagandists.
Did you forget though that your organization is directly associated with a State funded & run university? Did you forget the required separation of church and state?
Your program appears to be falling in line with a similarly corrosive program (which happens to also be Templeton funded), Krista Tippett's program Speak of Faith (or whatever she's calling it this week). But since Templeton does clearly engage in religious propaganda, as a U.S. citizen and tax payer, I request and require that you, an entity that is part of the American government via the State of Wisconsin, to stop taking money from religious propagandists.
Clearly those who fear the ground and progress science has made relative to it's description of reality, they now feel that it is necessary to subvert public discourse and reason via funding programs such as yours and that of Ms. Tippett, and attached to their funding is a key request & defacto requirement: That you tow their propagandistic line in favor of religion and which serves to muddy and subvert science. Or that your voice be joined to a chorus that Templeton will in the end CRAFT to show the message they WANT to show - a message they DEMAND to show: a view that subverts science & reason & which promotes religious whitewashing & dishonesty.
Not everything is equal.
Are the claims of religions factual or not? If you claim they are, then you are not stating what it is that is our "best" knowledge. To the "best" of our knowledge requires that science be allowed to delve and ask questions about and at least try to give answers to all aspects of the human endeavor. The Templeton Foundation wants to very strongly restrict what the scientific endeavor and scientific world view can comment on. It wants to subvert science & blur the line between science & religion. But by doing so they advocate for religion & for mysticism, and they subvert science.
A feeling of awe is not a "religious feeling," it's just a feeling. Religion has no special warrant to comment on moral truths. Witness what they do relative to protecting pedophile priests, bagging women from head to toe, genital mutilation, and patently false claims about the nature of reality. Here's some key claims of religion:
The Catholic claim that Mary was a virgin before giving birth to Jesus.
The advanced Mormon doctrinal claim that Mary had literal
sex with Elohim (God the Father).
The claim that Mohammad had a literal vision from his god, where his god told him to kill the unbeliever in his rather bloodthirsty Quran.
The claim that Joseph Smith had several literal visions, and that his Book of Mormon came from his god..
And on and on ad infinitum, with regard to countless religions and their charismatic and apparently often schizotypal leaders.
I don't listen to public radio to hear from religious wackjobs. The right wing already has their Bible-beater stations. But you are supposed to be a sanctuary from their lies and crap - and Templeton clearly wants to destroy the sanctuary.
Also and importantly, public radio which is directly connected to the government must not advocate for and on behalf of religion, nor act as a subverter of science & reason via the methods mentioned above, and as commented on at length by noted scientists and philosophers Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Anthony Grayling, Richard Dawkins, Harry Kroto, and P.Z. Myers.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
Saturday, December 4, 2010
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
Sunday, October 24, 2010
night addendum of 10-24-2010
I have watched both sides on the Juan Williams thing. The responses from both sides caused me to be annoyed.
I'm annoyed at those on the left who I disagree with. I'm annoyed that the left refuses to appreciate people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I'm annoyed that the right doesn't want universal heathcare, and that much of their policies amount to social Darwinism (or Spencerism).
On MSNBC they've mischaracterized Juan's comments I think.
But Fox still remains an idiot channel too.
Maybe this is why I don't have cable.
I'm off to bed.
I guess in a supposedly free country country I get to define myself how I choose.
I'm a leftist who opposes gender apartheid, conservative religion, and apology for oppression.
I'm annoyed at those on the left who I disagree with. I'm annoyed that the left refuses to appreciate people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I'm annoyed that the right doesn't want universal heathcare, and that much of their policies amount to social Darwinism (or Spencerism).
On MSNBC they've mischaracterized Juan's comments I think.
But Fox still remains an idiot channel too.
Maybe this is why I don't have cable.
I'm off to bed.
I guess in a supposedly free country country I get to define myself how I choose.
I'm a leftist who opposes gender apartheid, conservative religion, and apology for oppression.
WTF: Lefties in favor of bagging women from head to toe
It is sadly true that there are ultra lefties in favor of bagging women from head to toe, and they consider such bagging "liberation."
Having been raised in a left leaning household I naturally have an affinity for the so-called left. But it really is insane to consider that any ideology that seeks to bag women as a normal matter of course is healthy or happy or worth supporting.
The original article from a member of the "Sydney Socialist Alliance."
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/45667
And a response from Frontpage Magazine:
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/10/12/the-lefts-pro-burqa-problem/
Maybe this is how it feels like to be pushed from one side to the other by the extremists. As a socialist and a leftie myself I personally am disgusted by "socialists" and left leaning people who are in favor of abusive gender apartheid, and bagging women from head to toe as a normal common matter of course. These people are fucking crazy.
Notice how on their webpage they make a reference to "independent media." And that reminds me, Amy Goodman in the U.S. has often played Islamic music during her "Democracy Now!" program.
What the fuck is up with the hippie generation in the U.S. & everywhere? The Iraq war and 9/11 has driven the some of the hippie generation and their children to be new apologists for and worshipers of hard line Islam. It's fucking amazing, and worth fighting against. One form of insanity apparently breads another.
Yes the Iraq war was highly problematic. But that doesn't mean we or anyone is justified in advocacy for incredibly abusive human spirit destroying gender apartheid.
Islam is a religion, not a race. All religions are sets of memes. Not all are equal. Some help humanity thrive. Some are abusive. But Saudi style Islam that bags women from head to toe, and that seeks to keep boys and girls separate after age eight - that form really is a cancer on humanity - an incredibly abusive ideology / meme-set / religion that deserves to be exposed as one of the most abusive meme-virus cancers that humanity has ever produced.
If Islam is to have a Reformation and an Enlightenment, we must be honest about all this.
Having been raised in a left leaning household I naturally have an affinity for the so-called left. But it really is insane to consider that any ideology that seeks to bag women as a normal matter of course is healthy or happy or worth supporting.
The original article from a member of the "Sydney Socialist Alliance."
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/45667
And a response from Frontpage Magazine:
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/10/12/the-lefts-pro-burqa-problem/
Maybe this is how it feels like to be pushed from one side to the other by the extremists. As a socialist and a leftie myself I personally am disgusted by "socialists" and left leaning people who are in favor of abusive gender apartheid, and bagging women from head to toe as a normal common matter of course. These people are fucking crazy.
Notice how on their webpage they make a reference to "independent media." And that reminds me, Amy Goodman in the U.S. has often played Islamic music during her "Democracy Now!" program.
What the fuck is up with the hippie generation in the U.S. & everywhere? The Iraq war and 9/11 has driven the some of the hippie generation and their children to be new apologists for and worshipers of hard line Islam. It's fucking amazing, and worth fighting against. One form of insanity apparently breads another.
Yes the Iraq war was highly problematic. But that doesn't mean we or anyone is justified in advocacy for incredibly abusive human spirit destroying gender apartheid.
Islam is a religion, not a race. All religions are sets of memes. Not all are equal. Some help humanity thrive. Some are abusive. But Saudi style Islam that bags women from head to toe, and that seeks to keep boys and girls separate after age eight - that form really is a cancer on humanity - an incredibly abusive ideology / meme-set / religion that deserves to be exposed as one of the most abusive meme-virus cancers that humanity has ever produced.
If Islam is to have a Reformation and an Enlightenment, we must be honest about all this.
Oh Lord, free me from the F tards on the left and the right - 10-24-2010
From my little house on the shores of the Great Salt Lake. Today's rant:
With the clouds in the sky and the rain I don't feel like doing much of anything other than vegging out. I went to an Armenian store and got some cherry liquor filled chocolates and dates. It has been confirmed that my dating profile is good to go. I've reconsidered my past (a few years ago) stance on Juan Williams. I now think that it was good to have him at both Fox & NPR because he served as a bridge from the liberals to the conservatives. But NPR severed that bridge in a stupid way, and they've inflamed the issue. And I'm a bit tired of having to think about responding to the retards on the far left who believe that his remarks were improper, because IMO in context his comments were proper. It's true that Fox is largely comprised of troglodyte greedy social-Darwinist right-wing nut jobs, but Juan was a voice of reason these people and to the people who watch Fox news. Perhaps he'll continue to be. But the D.C. beltway politically correct East coast left just cut off their noses despite their face with this firing.
There seems to be a line of reasoning emerging that I can increasingly recognize, with those who believe that cartoons of Mohammad should be censored, the people who say this on the left, and these same people support Juan's firing. It's the same people who oppose the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq. It's the same people who were very irritated at Bush's mishandling of the Iraq war. And these same people see 9/11 as some sort of natural response to western imperialism.
But their response feels to me like that of someone who gets punched, the person who gets punched then gets up and wants to have a nice chat with the abuser. Or they want to ignore when the abuser goes and starts punching others. Their response is fear based. The puncher in this case is the Taliban, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and what used to be Sadam's Iraq.
The banning of the recent relevant episode of South Park was fear based.
The left support for the censorship of the Danish cartoons was fear based.
Not caring about whether Afghan women are again put under the thumb of the Taliban - the people on the left who say this, this response is both fear based and an example of the disease of cultural relativism that infects the academic ivory towers of the west.
Thank goodness for people like Sam Harris & Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and secular Islam advocates such as at
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/digitalmedia/video/secular_islam_summit_panel_2_part_1/
http://www.samharris.org/
http://www.aei.org/scholar/117
Also thank the Lord for Pat Condell.
http://www.patcondell.net/
The way Bush handled the Iraq war didn't help things either. It helped push the left to be even more appreciative of Islam, and has, apparently, driven much of the far left to consider 9/11 to be "Islam Appreciation Day."
So with this latest Juan Williams thing, it comes on the heels on the Ground Zero Mega Mosque controversy and a 9/11 anniversary. And I can say that the state of things on the left and the right doesn't make me particularly happy.
I have no interest in supporting greedy corporatist bastards.
But on the other hand I have no interest in supporting Saudi-and-Taliban-style Islam that continues to oppress women at home and abroad.
But, unlike C.A.I.R., a group that appears to be a Hamas front group, there's some more hopeful groups such as http://www.aifdemocracy.org/
Anyway, the knife of 9/11 keeps getting turned and twisted, by the left and the right.
The firing of Juan was a twisting by the left. Keith Olbermann's support for the Ground Zero Mega Mosque was a similar twisting.
Rudy Giuliani on the right certainly twisted it because in near every campaign speech he mentioned a noun, a verb, and 9/11.
Where are all the people with both brains and a heart?
I don't think oppressive countries should be allowed to stew in their own garbage, as is apparently advocated by Michael Moore in the following piece:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/juan-williams-is-right-po_b_772766.html
I disagree with Moore & his cohorts: Yes, countries that oppress their populous have no sovereign right to do so untouched. And yes, young men in Islam are driven to suicide so they can get 72 virgins in the afterlife.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxfo11A7XuA&t=7m42s
Anyway, it's a crazy world. But a highly increased use of expletives toward all sides seems an apt course at this time. May we find a way forward away from the stinky stuffy people and the wrong headed hippies who've moved on to academia and NPR, who are willing to sit by which their fellows wallow in a sewer. And forward away from the corporatist charlatans who seek to deceive the poor into supporting their social-Darwinist agenda. Where's the voice of reason from people who have a conscience, and are intelligent?
I wish there were a national radio network that allowed for full freedom of speech, so that all views could be equally expressed. But right now, we apparently have one network for the politically correct censoring left, and a couple of right wing networks where the corporatist and tea bagger right gets to speak.
But at least there's youtube and so on. So we've got that.
It's a rainy day. But I'm feeling better already.
With the clouds in the sky and the rain I don't feel like doing much of anything other than vegging out. I went to an Armenian store and got some cherry liquor filled chocolates and dates. It has been confirmed that my dating profile is good to go. I've reconsidered my past (a few years ago) stance on Juan Williams. I now think that it was good to have him at both Fox & NPR because he served as a bridge from the liberals to the conservatives. But NPR severed that bridge in a stupid way, and they've inflamed the issue. And I'm a bit tired of having to think about responding to the retards on the far left who believe that his remarks were improper, because IMO in context his comments were proper. It's true that Fox is largely comprised of troglodyte greedy social-Darwinist right-wing nut jobs, but Juan was a voice of reason these people and to the people who watch Fox news. Perhaps he'll continue to be. But the D.C. beltway politically correct East coast left just cut off their noses despite their face with this firing.
There seems to be a line of reasoning emerging that I can increasingly recognize, with those who believe that cartoons of Mohammad should be censored, the people who say this on the left, and these same people support Juan's firing. It's the same people who oppose the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq. It's the same people who were very irritated at Bush's mishandling of the Iraq war. And these same people see 9/11 as some sort of natural response to western imperialism.
But their response feels to me like that of someone who gets punched, the person who gets punched then gets up and wants to have a nice chat with the abuser. Or they want to ignore when the abuser goes and starts punching others. Their response is fear based. The puncher in this case is the Taliban, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and what used to be Sadam's Iraq.
The banning of the recent relevant episode of South Park was fear based.
The left support for the censorship of the Danish cartoons was fear based.
Not caring about whether Afghan women are again put under the thumb of the Taliban - the people on the left who say this, this response is both fear based and an example of the disease of cultural relativism that infects the academic ivory towers of the west.
Thank goodness for people like Sam Harris & Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and secular Islam advocates such as at
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/digitalmedia/video/secular_islam_summit_panel_2_part_1/
http://www.samharris.org/
http://www.aei.org/scholar/117
Also thank the Lord for Pat Condell.
http://www.patcondell.net/
The way Bush handled the Iraq war didn't help things either. It helped push the left to be even more appreciative of Islam, and has, apparently, driven much of the far left to consider 9/11 to be "Islam Appreciation Day."
So with this latest Juan Williams thing, it comes on the heels on the Ground Zero Mega Mosque controversy and a 9/11 anniversary. And I can say that the state of things on the left and the right doesn't make me particularly happy.
I have no interest in supporting greedy corporatist bastards.
But on the other hand I have no interest in supporting Saudi-and-Taliban-style Islam that continues to oppress women at home and abroad.
But, unlike C.A.I.R., a group that appears to be a Hamas front group, there's some more hopeful groups such as http://www.aifdemocracy.org/
Anyway, the knife of 9/11 keeps getting turned and twisted, by the left and the right.
The firing of Juan was a twisting by the left. Keith Olbermann's support for the Ground Zero Mega Mosque was a similar twisting.
Rudy Giuliani on the right certainly twisted it because in near every campaign speech he mentioned a noun, a verb, and 9/11.
Where are all the people with both brains and a heart?
I don't think oppressive countries should be allowed to stew in their own garbage, as is apparently advocated by Michael Moore in the following piece:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/juan-williams-is-right-po_b_772766.html
I disagree with Moore & his cohorts: Yes, countries that oppress their populous have no sovereign right to do so untouched. And yes, young men in Islam are driven to suicide so they can get 72 virgins in the afterlife.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxfo11A7XuA&t=7m42s
Anyway, it's a crazy world. But a highly increased use of expletives toward all sides seems an apt course at this time. May we find a way forward away from the stinky stuffy people and the wrong headed hippies who've moved on to academia and NPR, who are willing to sit by which their fellows wallow in a sewer. And forward away from the corporatist charlatans who seek to deceive the poor into supporting their social-Darwinist agenda. Where's the voice of reason from people who have a conscience, and are intelligent?
I wish there were a national radio network that allowed for full freedom of speech, so that all views could be equally expressed. But right now, we apparently have one network for the politically correct censoring left, and a couple of right wing networks where the corporatist and tea bagger right gets to speak.
But at least there's youtube and so on. So we've got that.
It's a rainy day. But I'm feeling better already.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)