Religion is both a fantasy and fraud. Those religions that defraud society attempt to validate themselves through the repetitive use of myths and superstitions, none of these myths and superstitions have any basis in fact.
Religion is a fraud on society as a whole and an entity which has the financial means to affect political outcomes. The ongoing conflict among different religious groups to obtain political support is an attempt to expand and defraud even more of the people. Through devious and fraudulent means, religion seeks to achieve some level of respectability. None of it justified.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Survival and our religions...
Most religions say that they are in a search for the truth but then why are we expected to accept everything on faith and faith alone?
Two thousand years have transpired since the birth of Christ and approximately 1400 years since Mohammad. We have spent the last two thousand years without questioning the validity of religion or a god or gods. What concerns me is that Christianity, Islam and Judaism are all on a collision path. Isn't it about time that we took a more critical look at all religion and did some analytical thinking about it?
We could begin by asking why do we have a religion, what is the value of participating in a religion and why do we look to a god or gods? We tend to accept our individual beliefs and our gods based on pure faith and faith alone. We don't ask for fact or data to support an existence of a god or anything else relating to religion. Why do'nt we ask for factual data to support the existence of a god and/or the stories in the Bible, New Testament and the Qur'an?
Christian's even use the term "You can accept it as the Gospel" or the word of god. But why should we accept it as the "Gospel". The "Gospel" has no basis in fact nor can it in any way be supported by factual evidence.
To accept something as important as a god and religion on faith with no basis of fact is not rational. The problem is we don't have the luxury of ignoring the subject any longer or to say "let everyone do their own thing as long as they don't bother me". We can't afford to ignore religion any longer. We must address the subject. Religion has been a major cause of conflict around the world for centuries and is still the primary source of conflict today.
Just think about it. Should we accept a god and religion on faith alone? If someone told a wife or husband that their spouse was running around on they would ask for proof; but most people don't ask for or expect proof when someone mentions an imaginary god, an immaculate conception, arising from the daed, angels floating around with wings or being whisked away to a heaven on a flying horse. When you think about it it is rather rediculous isn't it?
For two thousand years we have had religious conflict and we still look to fables or stories written over 1400 years ago in the case of the Koran and two thousand years ago with the new testament. Many continue to accept these stories without question. Many still believe in a "divine creation" or "intelligent design" even though science has proven the theory of evolution.
Why does religion refuse to accept fact? We haven't learned anything about the pitfalls of religion over the last two thousand years. For some reason many find it difficult to accept science which is demonstratable evidence instead lean toward religion which lacks absolutley any basis in fact and must be supported on faith and faith alone. Much has been learned over the centuries such as the earth is not flat and that we no longer have to burn women at the stake for being witches because they caused storms; yet we have failed to question the same old fairy tales, myths and beliefs that have been repeated for centuries in the Qur'an and Bible.
We had better address the subject because we are approaching a world wide religious conflict of a magnitude not previously seen. All humanity must question the validity of our gods and religion superstitions or we will find ourselves living with the disastrous consequences of our failure to ask the questions. We must also stop the religious "conditioning" of our children starting at a very young age through "religious instruction of one form or the other. All religions indoctrinate the young before they have a chance to think and reason on their own. Let our childtren study religion at a more mature age and study it as a philosophy as they would study evolution as a science.
Our very existance may yet be destroyed using nuclear weapons in a religious war. We can't afford to ignore the many conflicts around the world among different religious sects and the radical thinking associated with so many religions extremists. All the religions on earth had better wake up to the dangers of their thinking and question the very nature of their beliefs before it is too late.
But then again it may already be too late.
Two thousand years have transpired since the birth of Christ and approximately 1400 years since Mohammad. We have spent the last two thousand years without questioning the validity of religion or a god or gods. What concerns me is that Christianity, Islam and Judaism are all on a collision path. Isn't it about time that we took a more critical look at all religion and did some analytical thinking about it?
We could begin by asking why do we have a religion, what is the value of participating in a religion and why do we look to a god or gods? We tend to accept our individual beliefs and our gods based on pure faith and faith alone. We don't ask for fact or data to support an existence of a god or anything else relating to religion. Why do'nt we ask for factual data to support the existence of a god and/or the stories in the Bible, New Testament and the Qur'an?
Christian's even use the term "You can accept it as the Gospel" or the word of god. But why should we accept it as the "Gospel". The "Gospel" has no basis in fact nor can it in any way be supported by factual evidence.
To accept something as important as a god and religion on faith with no basis of fact is not rational. The problem is we don't have the luxury of ignoring the subject any longer or to say "let everyone do their own thing as long as they don't bother me". We can't afford to ignore religion any longer. We must address the subject. Religion has been a major cause of conflict around the world for centuries and is still the primary source of conflict today.
Just think about it. Should we accept a god and religion on faith alone? If someone told a wife or husband that their spouse was running around on they would ask for proof; but most people don't ask for or expect proof when someone mentions an imaginary god, an immaculate conception, arising from the daed, angels floating around with wings or being whisked away to a heaven on a flying horse. When you think about it it is rather rediculous isn't it?
For two thousand years we have had religious conflict and we still look to fables or stories written over 1400 years ago in the case of the Koran and two thousand years ago with the new testament. Many continue to accept these stories without question. Many still believe in a "divine creation" or "intelligent design" even though science has proven the theory of evolution.
Why does religion refuse to accept fact? We haven't learned anything about the pitfalls of religion over the last two thousand years. For some reason many find it difficult to accept science which is demonstratable evidence instead lean toward religion which lacks absolutley any basis in fact and must be supported on faith and faith alone. Much has been learned over the centuries such as the earth is not flat and that we no longer have to burn women at the stake for being witches because they caused storms; yet we have failed to question the same old fairy tales, myths and beliefs that have been repeated for centuries in the Qur'an and Bible.
We had better address the subject because we are approaching a world wide religious conflict of a magnitude not previously seen. All humanity must question the validity of our gods and religion superstitions or we will find ourselves living with the disastrous consequences of our failure to ask the questions. We must also stop the religious "conditioning" of our children starting at a very young age through "religious instruction of one form or the other. All religions indoctrinate the young before they have a chance to think and reason on their own. Let our childtren study religion at a more mature age and study it as a philosophy as they would study evolution as a science.
Our very existance may yet be destroyed using nuclear weapons in a religious war. We can't afford to ignore the many conflicts around the world among different religious sects and the radical thinking associated with so many religions extremists. All the religions on earth had better wake up to the dangers of their thinking and question the very nature of their beliefs before it is too late.
But then again it may already be too late.
An article in the Washington Post by staff writer Jacqueline L Salmon states in part:
"A bipartisan group of House members is trying to force Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt to order an inspector general's investigation into allegations of religious bias and mismanagement at the spiritual ministry department in the nation's largest clinical research hospital.The spiritual ministry office, whose chaplains tend to the spiritual needs of thousands of patients at the National Institutes of Health's clinical center in Bethesda, has been the target of complaints by current and former chaplains about religious intolerance and poor leadership."
Where is our separation of church and state and why is there an organization such as the "Spiritual Ministry Office" located in the NIH? Religious conflict once more raises its ugly head even within our own governmental structure.
"A bipartisan group of House members is trying to force Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt to order an inspector general's investigation into allegations of religious bias and mismanagement at the spiritual ministry department in the nation's largest clinical research hospital.The spiritual ministry office, whose chaplains tend to the spiritual needs of thousands of patients at the National Institutes of Health's clinical center in Bethesda, has been the target of complaints by current and former chaplains about religious intolerance and poor leadership."
Where is our separation of church and state and why is there an organization such as the "Spiritual Ministry Office" located in the NIH? Religious conflict once more raises its ugly head even within our own governmental structure.
Is my anger justified?
Why I am angry with our president..
My anger with president Bush has more to do with his actions and objectives than his incompetence, although both are related. Our president walks hand in hand with the Saudi leadership yet Saudi Arabia and its funding of Islamic extremism is a major cause of conflict around the world. The problem is Islamic extremism and the root of the problem is oil rich Saudi Arabia. Islamic extremism today is as Christianity was during the Crusades and Inquisition before the Reformation. Islam has gone through a reformation as well but in the wrong direction. In the 18th century the Wahhabi imposed a radical version of Islam which rejected much of traditional Islam which was a more peace loving religion. This form of radical Islam has been propagated around the world for decades by the Saudi royalty and its oil money. The majority of Islamic terrorists subscribe to an extreme version of Wahhabism. Traditional Islam does not lead to terrorism but Wahhabism does. We here in the US only worsen terrorism by our support and arming of the Saudi government, our support of dictators throughout the middle east, and our occupation of Arab land. All these actions serve to worsen terrorism. Do we forget that most of the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia and not a single one came from Iraq? I wonder, could an agreement have been made between the Saudi royalty and the Bush administration in a tit for tat? The Saudis provide us oil and we provide them them protection from potential aggressors in the area.
Our intent in the attack of Iraq was not to free the people from a dictatorial rule but to establish a long term base of operation in the middle east, in a country that had sufficient oil to economically support its operation.
We were forced to leave Saudi Arabia by the Saudi people but its leadership wanted and needed our protection. What better agreement could be made? I think most recognize that the world has heard no complaint rom the Saudi royalty regarding our attack of Iraq.
Through both greed and ignorance our president has caused a worsening of terrorism. The administration's policies in the middle east, coupled with its support of Saudi Arabia (the people who provide financial support for terrorism), are despicable. I am angry with the Bush administration for both its national and foreign policy.
My anger with president Bush has more to do with his actions and objectives than his incompetence, although both are related. Our president walks hand in hand with the Saudi leadership yet Saudi Arabia and its funding of Islamic extremism is a major cause of conflict around the world. The problem is Islamic extremism and the root of the problem is oil rich Saudi Arabia. Islamic extremism today is as Christianity was during the Crusades and Inquisition before the Reformation. Islam has gone through a reformation as well but in the wrong direction. In the 18th century the Wahhabi imposed a radical version of Islam which rejected much of traditional Islam which was a more peace loving religion. This form of radical Islam has been propagated around the world for decades by the Saudi royalty and its oil money. The majority of Islamic terrorists subscribe to an extreme version of Wahhabism. Traditional Islam does not lead to terrorism but Wahhabism does. We here in the US only worsen terrorism by our support and arming of the Saudi government, our support of dictators throughout the middle east, and our occupation of Arab land. All these actions serve to worsen terrorism. Do we forget that most of the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia and not a single one came from Iraq? I wonder, could an agreement have been made between the Saudi royalty and the Bush administration in a tit for tat? The Saudis provide us oil and we provide them them protection from potential aggressors in the area.
Our intent in the attack of Iraq was not to free the people from a dictatorial rule but to establish a long term base of operation in the middle east, in a country that had sufficient oil to economically support its operation.
We were forced to leave Saudi Arabia by the Saudi people but its leadership wanted and needed our protection. What better agreement could be made? I think most recognize that the world has heard no complaint rom the Saudi royalty regarding our attack of Iraq.
Through both greed and ignorance our president has caused a worsening of terrorism. The administration's policies in the middle east, coupled with its support of Saudi Arabia (the people who provide financial support for terrorism), are despicable. I am angry with the Bush administration for both its national and foreign policy.
The ego of a president...
War, the fulfillment of an ego trip?
Is our president on one big ego trip? President Bush is “Commander in Chief,” of our military as reflected in the Constitution. One major problem however is that he believes he has the right to initiate wars. I disagree with his interpretation of his authority in this respect. For some obscure reason he also likes to make frequent reference to the fact that he is the "Commander in Chief". I sometimes get the impression that he is on an ego trip and just enjoys using the title; just as he enjoyed landing on the aircraft carrier in flight gear. I have read that the framers of the Constitution took the position, Commander in Chief, from the British military, which denoted the highest-ranking official in a theater of battle. In other words, this position is meant to be nothing more than the senior general or admiral of the military; the one who is responsible for command and control of the military forces.
It is a dangerous precedent to give President Bush, or any other president, the authority to initiate war. Our nation cannot afford to give any single individual this authority. The start of a war for personal reasons (ego or profit) is far too easy for someone lacking in either stability, maturity or intelligence.
President Bush has been unable to function with even minimum effectiveness in his position as "Commander in Chief". He has demonstrated a lack of "leadership", not only with the Iraqi war but with national concerns as well. To give him, or any other president, the authority to initiate war would be a disaster. If Bush had held a comparable position in industry and functioned as he has during his tenure as president he would have been fired long ago.
Is our president on one big ego trip? President Bush is “Commander in Chief,” of our military as reflected in the Constitution. One major problem however is that he believes he has the right to initiate wars. I disagree with his interpretation of his authority in this respect. For some obscure reason he also likes to make frequent reference to the fact that he is the "Commander in Chief". I sometimes get the impression that he is on an ego trip and just enjoys using the title; just as he enjoyed landing on the aircraft carrier in flight gear. I have read that the framers of the Constitution took the position, Commander in Chief, from the British military, which denoted the highest-ranking official in a theater of battle. In other words, this position is meant to be nothing more than the senior general or admiral of the military; the one who is responsible for command and control of the military forces.
It is a dangerous precedent to give President Bush, or any other president, the authority to initiate war. Our nation cannot afford to give any single individual this authority. The start of a war for personal reasons (ego or profit) is far too easy for someone lacking in either stability, maturity or intelligence.
President Bush has been unable to function with even minimum effectiveness in his position as "Commander in Chief". He has demonstrated a lack of "leadership", not only with the Iraqi war but with national concerns as well. To give him, or any other president, the authority to initiate war would be a disaster. If Bush had held a comparable position in industry and functioned as he has during his tenure as president he would have been fired long ago.
A Military Dictatorship?
A Military dictatorship in the US?
There is a widening gap in the approach to the Iraqi war between the White House/Department of Defense and the Congress. The White House, who is in control of our Department of Defense (DoD), is acting more like a military dictatorship.
Recent news reflects the fact that U.S. military officials have mapped out plans to maintain the current Iraq strategy well into next year, even though as lawmakers here at home have draw up plans to withdraw our troops.
Both the White House and the DoD appear to be ignoring both the Congress and the American people.
Are we, like so many other countries, heading for a military dictatorship? Our citizens should become more aware and concerned with the problem and take action with our Congress to address the issue and force them to assume the responsibility and authority they have. Who is representing the American people in view of the fact that our Congress does not seem to be taking any corrective action?
There is a widening gap in the approach to the Iraqi war between the White House/Department of Defense and the Congress. The White House, who is in control of our Department of Defense (DoD), is acting more like a military dictatorship.
Recent news reflects the fact that U.S. military officials have mapped out plans to maintain the current Iraq strategy well into next year, even though as lawmakers here at home have draw up plans to withdraw our troops.
Both the White House and the DoD appear to be ignoring both the Congress and the American people.
Are we, like so many other countries, heading for a military dictatorship? Our citizens should become more aware and concerned with the problem and take action with our Congress to address the issue and force them to assume the responsibility and authority they have. Who is representing the American people in view of the fact that our Congress does not seem to be taking any corrective action?
Prospective
The US foreign policy for many years is directed at turning incompetent communist régimes into competent fascist governments. One of our prior presidents stated: "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself." That is fascism-or the control of government by an individual or group. We have such a government today. The radical I quoted was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Would such a radical be permitted to speak his say today? Not likely!
War and Peace
War does not keep the peace...
A recent letter to the Editor in a local newspaper had the subject "War is what keeps the peace". How on earth can anyone state, or much less believe, that war is what keeps the peace? In reality war is the antithesis to peace. The writer uses the argument that "It's pay me now or pay me later". The writer also states "In the five and one half years since 9/11 we have not been attacked, thanks to the aggressive actions of this administration." The initiation of the war in Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and I believe most readers now accept that as fact. What is so disheartening is also the fact that terrorism has only worsened around the world since our (the US) invasion of Iraq. This is substantiated by the significant increase in the number of terrorist attacks around the world since our invasion. If a cause and effect relationship were to exist one may surmise that our attack may have been a causative or contributing factor. I, for one, believe that the attack of Iraq has only served to exacerbate worldwide terrorism. The bottom line is that war never keeps the peace but only serves to enflame the emotions of those impacted by it. If we are going to survive in the future we had better find other ways to achieve peace. War is not one of them nor is it a viable alternative.
A recent letter to the Editor in a local newspaper had the subject "War is what keeps the peace". How on earth can anyone state, or much less believe, that war is what keeps the peace? In reality war is the antithesis to peace. The writer uses the argument that "It's pay me now or pay me later". The writer also states "In the five and one half years since 9/11 we have not been attacked, thanks to the aggressive actions of this administration." The initiation of the war in Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and I believe most readers now accept that as fact. What is so disheartening is also the fact that terrorism has only worsened around the world since our (the US) invasion of Iraq. This is substantiated by the significant increase in the number of terrorist attacks around the world since our invasion. If a cause and effect relationship were to exist one may surmise that our attack may have been a causative or contributing factor. I, for one, believe that the attack of Iraq has only served to exacerbate worldwide terrorism. The bottom line is that war never keeps the peace but only serves to enflame the emotions of those impacted by it. If we are going to survive in the future we had better find other ways to achieve peace. War is not one of them nor is it a viable alternative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
