This is the the trailer for my new documentary film about the 2012 election, the exposing of voter fraud, and the ensuing uprising.
International Banking Cabalists Here To Take Over The United States: Using Cultural Terrorism, Slavery By Debt Through (Bailouts ~ Wars), & Political Correctness.
“No one can be a true Muslim and a true American simultaneously.”—Wafa Sultan
If you’ve ever wondered at the delight with which academics excuse Islamist terrorists, or at the callousness with which radical feminists ignore the oppression of Muslim women, or at the gushing adulation the Left devoted to the last centurys worst butchers, from Stalin to Saddam, “United In Hate is the book for you.
Radical Leftists have been losing their war against human nature for a long time, but they continue to search desperately for a winning formula. After Stalin, Mao, Uncle Ho, Pol Pot and countless Third World thugs had let them down, they believed they’d found redemption at last on 9/11. Jamie Glazov, the editor of Frontpagemag.com, describes the reaction of Leftist acquaintances to the fall of the Twin Towers: “Never had I seen them so happy, so hopeful and ready for another attempt at creating a glorious and revolutionary future. Without doubt, September 11 represented a personal vindication for them.” Noam Chomsky agreed with Osama that we deserved our misery. Ward Churchill had finally met his love match.
This rigorous, fight-back book dissects the Leftist identity in which personal dissatisfaction and social dysfunction are externalized as the fault of our wicked society an uncanny reflection of the Islamist platform that worldly evil flows from the US and Israel. Glazov is scathing on the inability of Islamists and Western fellow-travelers to form healthy male-female relationships: Sex may (or may not) be OK, but love between a man and a woman threatens the collective.
No matter whether the idealized system is a Communist utopia or an Islamist caliphate, the happy couple is a mortal threat. Worst of all, “The pursuit of happiness implies … that the world can be accepted for what it is,” Glazov argues, “and human beings can be accepted for what they are.”
So the Leftist believer embarks upon “the desperate search for the feeling of power to help him counteract the powerlessness he feels in his own life.” That could equally describe a suicide bomber. You and I may be too stupid to realize we’re miserable or damned, but the American Left and the mullahs are going to perfect us for our own good. The horrific bloodshed along the way is the outcast’s great revenge.
Whether analyzing Code Pink or “Code Sharia,” the book’s descriptions hit the target dead-center again and again: “Like Islamists, Leftists have a Manichean vision that rigidly distinguishes good from evil. They see themselves as personifications of the former and their opponents as personifications of the latter, who must be slated for ruthless elimination.”
Welcome to the hellish alliance that encourages American college brats to root for Hamas and Hezbollah. Dead Jews? Today’s Left has no more problem with the Holocaust than Stalin did or Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah does.
Fearlessly, Glazov rips into “the deep-rooted hatred and fear of female sexuality that permeates Islamist-Arabic culture.” But he also unveils our pseudo-feminists who excuse the burqa, genital mutilation, honor killings and general savagery toward Middle-Eastern women, noting that the privileged Americans need to ignore the suffering of their distant sisters in order “to hold onto their self-created victim identity.” If America isn’t so bad, it spoils everything.
I’d quibble with a few propositions: I find all fanatics dangerous, Left or Right but no honest person could deny this book’s validity and power. It’s a serious work by a brave scholar. It’s also fun to read (fun’s another no-no to Islamists and the Left).
To order United in Hate, click here.
via FrontPage Magazine.
“No one can be a true Muslim and a true American simultaneously.”—Wafa Sultan (From “A God Who Hates”)
Top ten reasons why sharia is bad for all societies
Traditional Muslims who understand the Quran and the hadith believe that sharia (Islamic law) expresses the highest and best goals for all societies. It is the will of Allah.
But is Islam just in its laws that Muhammad himself practiced and invented?
This article says no for ten verifiable reasons.
Here are four points you must read, before reading this article:
First, sometimes these ten points quote the Quran or omit it; sometimes they quote the hadith (reports of Muhammad’s words and actions outside of the Quran) or omit it. This is done only to keep down the length of the article. No one should be fooled into believing that these harsh and excessive laws were invented in the fevered imagination of extremists who came long after Muhammad. These harsh and excessive laws come directly from the founder of Islam in his Quran and in his example in the hadith.
Second, each of these ten reasons has a back—up article (or more) that is long and well documented with quotations and references to the Quran, the hadith, and classical legal opinions. The supporting articles also examine the historical and literary context of each Quranic verse. If the readers, especially critics, wish to challenge one or all of these ten reasons, or if they simply doubt them, they should click on the supporting articles. They will see that Muhammad himself actually laid down these excessive punishments and policies.
Third, it must be pointed out that these harsh laws are not (or should not be) imposed outside of an Islamic court of law. Careful legal hurdles must be passed before the punishments are carried out. However, even in that case, it will become clear to anyone who thinks clearly that these punishments and policies are excessive by their very nature, and excess is never just, as Aristotle taught us in his Nicomachean Ethics.
Fourth, in each of the lengthy supporting article (or articles), a Biblical view on these infractions of moral law (or sometimes civil law or personal injuries) is presented. One of the reasons we all sense that these Islamic punishments are harsh and excessive is that Christianity has also filled the globe. Even if one is not a Christian or is only a nominal Christian, he or she has breathed deeply of Christianity by virtue of laws and customs or even driving by churches. New Testament Christianity, when properly understood and followed, offers humanity dignity.
‘Islam’ in this article stands for Muhammad, the earliest Muslims, and classical legal scholars.
Here are the top ten reasons why sharia or Islamic law is bad for all societies.
10. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.
In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging not only for illicit sex (see reason no. nine), but also for drinking alcohol.
In 2005, in Nigeria a sharia court ordered that a drinker should be caned eighty strokes.
In 2005, in the Indonesian province of Aceh, fifteen men were caned in front of a mosque for gambling. This was done publicly so all could see and fear. Eleven others are scheduled to undergo the same penalty for gambling.
After going through two previous confusing stages before coming down hard on drinkers and gamblers, the Quran finally prohibits alcohol and gambling in Sura 5:90—91; they do not prescribe the punishment of flogging, but the hadith does. A poor ‘criminal’ was brought to Muhammad who became angry:
The Prophet felt it hard (was angry) and ordered all those who were present in the house, to beat him [the drinker dragged into Muhammad’s presence]. (Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6774—6775)
Thus, we see no offer of help for the alcoholic when he is dragged before Muhammad and his followers. Why does Muhammad not offer rehabilitation? Why does he immediately go to corporal punishment?
The later classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith, so we do not need to examine them here.
It is sometimes argued that Islamic countries are pure, whereas the West is decadent. No one can argue with this latter claim, but are Islamic countries pure? The Supplemental Material, below, demonstrates that Islamic countries still have drinking and gambling in them.
Here is the article that supports this tenth point and that analyzes the confusing Quranic verses on drinking and gambling. It analyzes the hadith and later legal rulings.
9. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.
Saudi television aired a talk show that discussed this issue. Scrolling three—fourths of the way down the link, the readers can see an Islamic scholar holding up sample rods that husbands may use to hit their wives.
The Quran says:
4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (MAS Abdel Haleem, the Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004)
The hadith says that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were suffering from domestic violence in the context of confusing marriage laws:
Rifa’a divorced his wife whereupon ‘AbdurRahman bin Az—Zubair Al—Qurazi married her. ‘Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Apostle came, ‘Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” (Bukhari)
This hadith shows Muhammad hitting his girl—bride, Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr: Muslim no.2127:
‘He [Muhammad] struck me [Aisha] on the chest which caused me pain.’
It is claimed that Islamic societies have fewer incidents of fornication and adultery because of strict laws or customs, for example, women wearing veils over their faces or keeping separate from men in social settings. But these results of fewer incidents of sexual ‘crimes’ may have unanticipated negative effects in other areas, such as the oppression of women. Generally, sharia restricts women’s social mobility and rights, the more closely sharia is followed. For example, in conservative Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive cars. In Iran, the lawoppresses women. For example, women’s testimony counts half that of men, and far more women than men are stoned to death for adultery.
Here is the supporting article for the ninth point. It has a long list of different translations of Sura 4:34, in order to resolve confusion over this verse, circulating around the web. This longerarticle has many links that demonstrate the oppression of women under Islamic law (scroll down to ‘Further discussion’).
8. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge—physical eye for physical eye.
In 2003, in Saudi Arabia a man had two teeth extracted under the law of retaliation.
In 2003, a court in Pakistan sentenced a man to be blinded by acid after he carried out a similar attack on his fianc�e.
In 2005, an Iranian court orders a man’s eye to be removed for throwing acid on another man and blinding him in both eyes.
The Quran says:
5:45 And We ordained therein for them: Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth and wounds equal for equal. But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers . . .). (Hilali and Khan, The Noble Qur’an, Riyadh: Darussalam, 1996)
This passage allows for an indemnity or compensation instead of imposing the literal punishment of eye for an eye. No one should have a quarrel with this option. According to the hadith, the plaintiff also has the option to forgive, and this is legitimate, provided a judge oversees the process. The problem is the literal law of retaliation.
The hadith and later legal rulings demonstrate that this excessive option was actually carried out, as do the three modern examples linked above.
Please go here for the supporting article that cites the hadith and later legal rulings.
Islamic law calls all of humanity to march backwards 1,400 years BC and to re—impose the old law of retaliation—literally, and the evidence suggest that the Torah never intended the law to be carried out literally, as the supporting article demonstrates.
7. Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off.
Warning! This short article has photos of severed hands. The reader should never lose sight of the fact that this punishment is prescribed in the Quran, the eternal word of Allah. It does not exist only in the fevered imagination of a violent and sick radical regime like the Taliban, which once ruled in Afghanistan.
A Saudi cleric justifies chopping off hands here.
The Quran says:
5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done—a deterrent from God: God is almighty and wise. 39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)
At first glance, verse 39 seems to accept repentance before the thief’s hand is cut off. But the hadith states emphatically that repentance is acceptable only after mutilation. Muhammad himself says that even if his own daughter, Fatima, were to steal and then intercede that her hand should not be cut off, he would still have to cut it off (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6788)
If the reader would like to see more hadith passages, modern defenses of this indefensible punishment (and a refutation of them), and the Biblical solution to theft, they should click on this long supporting article or this shorter one.
6. Islam commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated.
In September 2003, Scotsman Sandy Mitchell faced crucifixion in Saudi Arabia. He was beaten and tortured until he confessed to a crime he did not commit: a bomb plot masterminded by the British embassy. The article says of this punishment that it is the worst kind of execution and that two have been carried out in the last twenty years.
In 2002 Amnesty International reports that even though Saudi Arabia ratified the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture) in October 1997, amputation is prescribed under both Hudud (punishments) and Qisas (law of retaliation). AI has recorded thirty—three amputations and nine cross—amputations where the alternate hand or foot is mutilated.
The Quran says:
5:33 Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter, 34 unless they repent before you overpower them: in that case bear in mind that God is forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)
It may be difficult to accept, but the hadith says that Muhammad tortured these next people before he executed them. This scenario provides the historical context of Sura 5:33—34. The explanations in parentheses have been added by the translator:
Narrated Anas: Some people . . . came to the Prophet and embraced Islam . . . [T]hey turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away . . . The Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they died. (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6802)
The next hadith reports that the renegades died from bleeding to death because Muhammad refused to cauterize their amputated limbs. Then the hadith after that one reports that the renegades were not given water, so they died of thirst. They probably died of both causes: thirst and loss of blood.
See this short article for details on another example of Muhammad’s use of torture.
Islamic law says that these punishments are imposed for highway robbery, and in some cases crucifixion does not need a murder before it is imposed.
For more information on Muhammad’s brutality and the barbaric laws that flow out of it, go to the back—up article.
5. Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed.
In February 1998, the Taliban, who once ruled in Afghanistan, ordered a stone wall to be pushed over three men convicted of sodomy. Their lives were to be spared if they survived for 30 minutes and were still alive when the stones were removed.
In its 1991 Constitution, in Articles 108—113, Iran adopted the punishment of execution for sodomy.
In April 2005, a Kuwaiti cleric says homosexuals should be thrown off a mountain or stoned to death.
On April 7, 2005, it was reported that Saudi Arabia sentenced more than 100 men to prison or flogging for ‘gay conduct.’
These homosexuals were lucky. Early Islam would have executed them, as these hadith demonstrate.
Ibn Abbas, Muhammad’s cousin and highly reliable transmitter of hadith, reports the following about early Islam and Muhammad’s punishment of homosexuals: . . .
‘If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done’ (Abu Dawud no. 4447).
This hadith passage says that homosexuals should be burned alive or have wall pushed on them:
Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira reported God’s messenger as saying, ‘Accursed is he who does what Lot’s people did.’ In a version . . . on the authority of Ibn Abbas it says that Ali [Muhammad’s cousin and son—in—law] had two peopleburned and that Abu Bakr [Muhammad’s chief companion] had a wall thrown down on them. (Mishkat, vol. 1, p. 765, Prescribed Punishments)
Though this punishment of a wall being toppled on them is extreme, the Taliban were merely following the origins of their religion.
If the reader would like to see the confusion in the Quran on the matter of homosexuality, the severity in the hadith, and excessive rulings of classical fiqh, they should see the supportingarticle. This longer one has links to many discussions on Islamic punishments of homosexuals (scroll down to ‘Supplemental material’).
4. Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.
In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging for illicit sex.
The Quran says:
24:2 The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. [This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime (illegal sex), but if married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah’s law]. (Hilali and Khan).
The additions in the brackets, though not original to the Arabic, have the support of the hadith. These command flogging only of unmarried fornicators: Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6831 and 6833.
The classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we do not need to analyze them here.
According to this report, in Iran a teenage boy broke his Ramadan fast, so a judge sentenced him to be lashed with eighty—five stripes. He died from the punishment. Though his sad case does not deal with fornication, it is cited here because it shows that lashing can be fatal.
In December 2004, Amnesty International reports:
An Iranian woman charged with adultery faces death by stoning in the next five days after her death sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court last month. Her unnamed co—defendant is at risk of imminent execution by hanging. Amnesty International members are now writing urgent appeals to the Iranian authorities, calling for the execution to be stopped.
She is to be buried up to her chest and stoned to death.
This gruesome hadith passage reports that a woman was buried up to her chest and stoned to death:
And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al—Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on his face he cursed her . . . (Muslim no. 4206)
The Prophet prayed over her dead body and then buried her. Truthfully, though, how effective was the prayer when Muhammad and his community murdered her in cold blood? The rest of the hadith says that Muhammad told Khalid not to be too harsh, but the Prophet’s words drip with irony. Perhaps Muhammad meant that Khalid should not have cursed her. However, if they really did not want to be harsh, they should have forgiven her and let her go to raise her child.
Later Islamic legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we do not need to analyze them here.
Here is the back—up article that supports this fourth reason.
3. Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non—Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia itself.
In 1989, Iran’s Supreme Leader issued a fatwa (legal decree) to assassinate Salman Rushdie, a novelist, who wrote Satanic Verses, which includes questions about the angel Gabriel’s role in inspiring the Quran. Now the extremists in the highest levels in Iran have recently renewed the fatwa.
In 2005, The Muslim Council of Victoria, Australia, brought a lawsuit against two pastors for holding a conference and posting articles critiquing Islam. Three Muslims attended the conference and felt offended. The two pastors have been convicted based on Australia’s vilification law. While on trial, one of them wanted to read from the Quran on domestic violence (see 9, above), but the lawyer representing the Council would not allow it. The pastors are appealing their conviction.
In 2005, British Muslims have been campaigning to pass a religious hate speech law in England’s parliament. They have succeeded. Their ability to propagandize has not been curtailed. Opponents of the law say that it stifles free speech that may criticize Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam.
Here are the classical legal rulings.
First, the Muslim deserves death for doing any of the following (Reliance of the Traveler pp. 597—98, o8.7):
(1) Reviling Allah or his Messenger; (2) being sarcastic about ‘Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat’; (3) denying any verse of the Quran or ‘anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it’; (4) holding that ‘any of Allah’s messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent’; (5) reviling the religion of Islam; (6) being sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law; (7) denying that Allah intended ‘the Prophet’s message . . . to be the religion followed by the entire world.’
It is no wonder that critical investigation of the truth claims of Islam can never prevail in Islamic lands when the sword of Muhammad hangs over the scholars’ head.
The non—Muslims living under Islamic rule are not allowed to do the following (p. 609, o11.10(1)—(5)):
(1) Commit adultery with a Muslim woman or marry her; (2) conceal spies of hostile forces; (3) lead a Muslim away from Islam; (4) mention something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet . . . or Islam.
According to the discretion of the caliph or his representative, the punishments for violating these rules are as follows: (1) death, (2) enslavement, (3) release without paying anything, and (4) ransoming in exchange for money. These punishments also execute free speech—even repulsive speech—and freedom of religion or conscience.
Ultimately, censorship testifies to a lack of confidence in one’s position and message. If the message of Islam were truly superior, one could trust in the power of truth. As it stands, sharia with its prescribed punishments for questioning Muhammad, the Quran, and sharia itself testifies to their weakness since sharia threatens those who dare to differ.
How confident was Muhammad (and today’s Muslims) in his message that he had to rely on violence and force to protect his message, besides reason and persuasive argumentation?
For the supporting article that analyzes the Quran and the hadith, both of which orders death to critics, click here.
2. Islam orders apostates to be killed.
In Iran an academic was condemned to death for criticizing clerical rule in Iran. The rulers assert that he was insulting Muhammad and Shi’ite laws. He was charged with apostasy.
This analysis tracks the application of apostasy laws around the world, citing many examples.
Apostates are those who leave Islam, like Salman Rushdie (see the linked article in no. three, above), whether they become atheists or convert to another religion. They are supposed to be killed according to the Quran, the hadith, and later legal rulings.
See the previous point no. three for acts that entail leaving Islam according to Islamic law.
Here are the articles that support reason no. two.
This is a short, but full article on apostasy, citing Quranic verses and hadith passages.
Sayyid Maududi, a respected Islamic scholar, in this booklet argues that Sura 9:11—12 refers to apostates and that they should be put to death (scroll down to ‘The Proof in the Quran for the Commandment to Execute Apostates’).
This Muslim website has an overview of Islam on apostates. They should be given time to repent, but if they refuse, they must be killed.
And the number one reason why sharia is bad for all societies . . .
1. Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad.
Muhammad is foundational to Islam, and he set the genetic code for Islam, waging war. In the ten years that he lived in Medina from his Hijrah (Emigration) from Mecca in AD 622 to his death of a fever in AD 632, he either sent out or went out on seventy—four raids, expeditions, or full—scale wars. They range from small assassination hit squads to kill anyone who insulted him, to the Tabuk Crusades in late AD 630 against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a rumor that an army was mobilizing to invade Arabia, but the rumor was false, so his 30,000 jihadists returned home, but not before imposing a jizya tax on northern Christians and Jews.
Money flowed into the Islamic treasury. So why would Muhammad get a revelation to dry up this money flow?
What are some of the legalized rules of jihad found in the Quran, hadith, and classical legal opinions?
(1) Women and children are enslaved. They can either be sold, or the Muslims may ‘marry’ the women, since their marriages are automatically annulled upon their capture.
(2) Jihadists may have sex with slave women. Ali, Muhammad’s cousin and son—in—law, did this.
(3) Women and children must not be killed during war, unless this happens in a nighttime raid when visibility was low.
(4) Old men and monks could be killed.
(5) A captured enemy of war could be killed, enslaved, ransomed for money or an exchange, freely released, or beaten. One time Muhammad even tortured a citizen of the city of Khaybar in order to extract information about where the wealth of the city was hidden.
(6) Enemy men who converted could keep their property and small children. This law is so excessive that it amounts to forced conversion. Only the strongest of the strong could resist this coercion and remain a non—Muslim.
(7) Civilian property may be confiscated.
(8) Civilian homes may be destroyed.
(9) Civilian fruit trees may be destroyed.
(10) Pagan Arabs had to convert or die. This does not allow for the freedom of religion or conscience.
(11) People of the Book (Jews and Christians) had three options (Sura 9:29): fight and die; convert and pay a forced ‘charity’ or zakat tax; or keep their Biblical faith and pay a jizya or poll tax. The last two options mean that money flows into the Islamic treasury, so why would Muhammad receive a revelation to dry up this money flow?
Thus, jihad is aggressive, coercive, and excessive, and Allah never revealed to Muhammad to stop these practices.
For an analysis of the Christian Crusades and the Islamic Crusades, click here.
For the supporting article of reason no. one, please go here. It also has a segment on the differences between jihad in Islam and the wars in the Old Testament. Another article on that topic can be read here. There are vast differences between Islam and Judaism on this topic.
Therefore, Islam is violent—unjustly and aggressively.
The nightmare must end. Sharia oppresses the citizens of Islamic countries. Islam must reform, but the legal hierarchy in Islamic nations will not do this because the judges and legal scholars understand the cost: many passages in the Quran and the hadith must be rejected, and this they cannot do. After all, the Quran came down directly from Allah through Gabriel, so says traditional theology. So how can Islam reform?
But reform it must. It can start by rewriting classical fiqh (interpretations of law). Again, though, that would mean leaving behind the Quran and Muhammad’s example. How can the legal hierarchy in Islamic nations do this?
In contrast, the West has undergone the Enlightenment or the Age of Reason (c. 1600—1800+), so western law has been injected with a heavy dose of reason. Also, the New Testament tempers excessive punishments.
At least when Christianity reformed (c. 1400—1600), the reformers went back to the New Testament, which preaches peace and love. So religion and reason in the West permit justice to be found more readily—the Medieval Church is not foundational to Christianity; only Jesus and the New Testament are.
Can Islamic countries benefit from an Enlightenment that may deny the Quran and the hadith? This seems impossible. Islamic law threatens Muslims with death if they criticize Muhammad and the Quran, not to mention denying them.
Since Islamic law cannot be reformed without doing serious damage to original and authentic Islam—the one taught by Muhammad—then a second plan must be played out. Sharia must never spread around the world. At least that much is clear and achievable.
The hard evidence in this article demonstrates beyond doubt that sharia does not benefit any society, for it contains too many harsh rules and punishments.
One of the most tragic and under—reported occurrences in the West in recent years is the existence of a sharia court in Canada. Muslims are pushing for a sharia divorce courting Australia as well. Having a court of arbitration if it is based on western law and legal theory is legitimate, but sharia does not hold to this standard.
Whether sharia is imposed gradually or rapidly, Canada should promptly shut down any sharia court, and Australia should never allow one. Such a court should never be permitted in the US, the rest of the West, or anywhere else in the world that is battling Islam.
It is true that the Enlightenment teaches tolerance, but it also teaches critical thinking and reasoning. Sharia cannot stand up under scrutiny. It is intolerant and excessive, and Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics teaches the West that excess is never just.
Thankfully, the province of Quebec, Canada, has forbidden sharia. This is the right initiative.
Sharia ultimately degrades society and diminishes freedom.
James M. Arlandson may be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
In private emails to me or on websites, Muslim apologists (defenders) claim that the Islamic way of dealing with vices is superior to the western way, even in Islam’s punishments like flogging and stoning.
It is true that the West is filled with decadence, but are Islamic countries pure and pristine through and through, as these Muslim apologists imply? To anyone whose mind has not been clouded by a lifetime of devotion to Islam, the answer to this rhetorical question is obvious. Alcohol and other intoxicants and gambling serve as test cases.
This article says that Bahrain, an island and independent sate that is connected to Saudi Arabia by a causeway, provides a ‘breathing lung’ for Saudis because this Islamic island allows the free flow of alcohol and a night life.
The words ‘breathing lung’ in Bahrain mean that Saudi Arabia suffocates people. On the weekends an average of 40,000 cars line up to cross the bridge.
This article discusses the smuggling of alcohol in Saudi Arabia and says:
“Western analysts note that alcohol smuggling of the magnitude underway in Saudi Arabia —— perhaps tens of millions of dollars’ worth of illegal merchandise annually —— would likely involve the complicity of Saudi customs agents and perhaps a higher—level patron.”
This article reveals how Iranians get around the official ban on alcohol, like beer and vodka and other intoxicants, like opium. A black market has sprung up—just like the one in America during Prohibition.
This article says that even though the Taliban, the tyrants who formerly ruled Afghanistan, outlawed the growth of poppies, which are the source of opium, the leaders of the Taliban may have profited from the drug trade. The new and democratic government has a hard time keeping this drug under control.
This article says that authorities in Turkey threaten to imprison online gamblers, and this page links to a report (scroll to the second one) that discusses how Turkey must deal with the problem of monetary interest, alcohol, and gambling. It is revealing to see how Muslim religious leaders try to squirm out of Quranic laws against interest, in order to help Islamic financial institutions make money.
The purpose of these links is not to condemn Islamic countries or to assert that the West is better than they are. Facts say that the West has many problems. Rather, the purpose is to demonstrate that Islamic countries have their share of problems as well. This means that Islamic countries are also decadent. This means that Islamic punishments do not work entirely (except by scare tactics), but they can drive the sin or crime underground.
Slavery By Debt & In Earnest, Begins With Billy Clinton.
Demand the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, H.R. 1489, immediately.
ON THE 1999 REPEAL OF GLASS-STEAGALL:
Was It Not Treason?
July 1, 2011
Whether it were the fruit of ignorance or other folly, the 1999 repeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall law, has had an effect comparable to that which might have been brought about through an explicit act of treason against our United States.
Among nations other than our own, their lack of a standard of law equivalent to Glass-Steagall is, in effect, a fruit of either culpable malice or of a folly of ignorance. In the case of our own nation, the principle expressed as the 1933 Glass-Steagall law, had been a return to the argument which prompted the crafting of our Federal Constitution.
The resulting wave of a wild-eyed stampede of accelerating inflation, since the beginning of 2001, has been the result of the termination of Glass-Steagall.
The wild-eyed bubble of skyrocketing real-estate mortgage speculation, and related Wall Street forms of John Law-like hyperinflation in all speculative markets of the trans-Atlantic region of the world, have been the continuing consequences.
On this point, there was never an honest sort of ignorance in the implicitly treasonous motive expressed by J.P. Morgan‘s agent Alan Greenspan, in launching the undermining, and subsequent repeal of Glass-Steagall.
He, like many among that horrid pestilence known as “Wall Street,” have represented, ever since Judge Lowell’s evil days following the Seven Years War, a horrid pestilence planted in the likeness of a filthy disease spread by our republic’s speculator class. The truth today, is “Glass-Steagall today, or die.”
I have been forecasting in a professional capacity since my first successful forecast for the national economy in late Summer of 1956, when I had first projected the most serious of the post-war recessions to break out at either the close of February 1957, or early March.
Both then, and in later forecasts, I have always rejected what is called “statistical forecasts.” During that interval from late Summer 1956, to the present day, the forecasts which I have made by physical-economic forecasting have always been accurate relative to the forecasts of those known to me otherwise.
My advantage never depended on “better statistics,” but on my recognition of the inherent folly of presuming that financial-statistical methods had a consistent correlation with the movements in the physical effects of the economic process.
To make that point clearer, say that the real effects of economy do not lie within monetary systems as such, but in physical-economic processes which always, ultimately, reveal themselves to anyone. Statistical forecasting is fairly defined as a form of gambling, a form which is caught between the forces of physical-economic changes, or the lack of needed changes.
In other words, the prosperity or deep decline in a national economy of the trans-Atlantic regions, has always been a physical-economic decline in all its essential features.
A financial collapse is an effect to be expected when the financial growth outruns the net physical-economic growth. It is when the discrepancy of the effect of the growth of the margin of difference between a physical and a financial growth, increases in a self-feeding form, that the serious monetary crisis takes the chronic form known as either a trend toward hyperinflation or depression.
It is when such patterns are competently examined from their underlying physical, rather than merely financial forms, that a true physical law of economy is brought to our attention. That principle is brought to the surface as a true physical law of economy which acts in direct contradiction to the fraudulent concoction called a “Second Law of Thermodynamics.”
The correct law, is one of the necessity of anti-entropic long-term trends, over the recent half-billions years of life on Earth, is the requirement that the effective net energy-flux density of living processes must increase, in the effect of the combined living species of our planet, of an increase of the energy-flux density expressed by the evolution of living species.
In other words, a society which seeks to enforce a rule of fixed energy-flux density as a whole process in evolution of content and practice, is a condition of life proceeding in the direction of extinction of leading species, such as mankind.
In the science of physical economy, as distinguished from a merely monetarist economy, the requirement for the survival of the human species, is the increased energy-flux intensity of the mode of existence of that species, as from lower forms of chemistry to increasingly higher rates of “capital-intensity” of the development of human society generally.
College Student Speech On The Glass Steagall Act.
speach? Whel who evur postad this neids a speel chekar lol.
Without an accelerating density of nuclear-fission, thermonuclear-fusion, and matter-anti-matter, in forms of increasing capital-intensity of both production and the higher platforms that requires, mankind would have made himself just another species to join the census of the vast ration of eliminated species, which went extinct largely because they ceased to progress in effective energy-flux density of effect per capita and per square kilometer of the Earth’s surface area.
Today, mankind is the only species which has the potential of remaining a leading, living species.
This document presents the opening argument, as a completed statement here. However, in subsequent publications, there will be more on this subject to come.
Political Correctness ~ Inverting The United State’s Moral Language
Science, Politics and Esoteric Knowledge: ” … there has emerged a phenomenon unknown to antiquity (political correctness) that permeates our modern society so completely that its ubiquity scarcely leaves us any room to see it at all: the prohibition of questioning … We are confronted here with persons who know that, and why, their opinions cannot stand up under critical analysis and who therefore make the prohibition of the examination of their premises part of their dogma … The questions of the “individual man” are cut off by the ukase (an arbitrary command) of the speculator who will not permit his construct to be disturbed.”
They were members of the Frankfurt School, formed in Germany in 1923. They were the forebears of what some proclaim as ‘cultural Marxism,’ a radical social movement that has transformed American culture. It is more commonly known today as ‘political correctness.’
Is there such a thing as “academic fraud“?
Scientific fraud, even by accounts of those within the field, is running rampant.2 It destroys the integrity of those very fields of science, and further erodes the public trust in the scientific enterprise itself.
Scientific fraud fundamentally confuses and distorts our own perceptions of ourselves and of our world. But worse, it is the agent of concrete harm when applied to millions of innocent human beings, to our already-fragile environment and to public policy considerations. Who is responsible for this scientific fraud and harm? And who is accountable for it? Are there any validly equivalent phenomena in other areas of academia?
“Fraud” is not to be predicated of scientists only. Several recent books and articles, detailing the intellectual and political woes of our elementary, secondary and university educational systems, attest to the fact that “academic fraud” is not restricted to the field of science.3
Is academic fraud in other fields also in the process of destroying those affected academic fields? Is it engendering more and more public distrust in the very enterprise of academia itself? Does it also confuse and distort our own perceptions of ourselves and of our world?
And when it is applied, does it also cause concrete harm? Who is responsible for this “other” academic fraud? And who is accountable for it? An anticipated retort to such questions would understandably come in the guise of “academic freedom”.
Academia requires the “free” expression of opinions and ideas – politically correct and otherwise. But an important distinction is being lost. What is presently missing in this equation is the “otherwise”.
If only “political correctness” is allowed to constitute the “free exchange of ideas”, then there is not “free” exchange of ideas at all – only pompous propaganda. And if only fallacious and fabricated ideas constitute the “dialogue”, then there is no true dialogue at all – only self-aggrandizing soliloquies.
“Academic freedom” requires both free expression and free dialogue – but it also requires that all of these ideas and theories be vigorously attacked, defended and evaluated -a game in which not every idea or theory can win. — Unless, of course, defenders of the “otherwise” are prohibited from questioning these “constructs”. In this pluralistic society and age of relativism, subjectivism and “political correctness”, the increased tendency (and often the imperative) is to be “tolerant” of a diversity of opinions.
As educators, our profession demands foremost the respect that is due to each student that comes under our influence. We know that students come from a variety of cultural, social and familial backgrounds; that they are in uneven stages of maturity, abilities, experience and preparation; and that great care and prudence is demanded in our teaching relationships and interactions with them.
But in the process of respecting their diversity of opinions, do we in fact actually harm them – and our colleagues and institutions – if we are so overly sensitive (or cowardly) that we resort to the fabrication and falsification of our subject matters, and selectively use only “politically correct”materials in our teaching efforts?
Has “sensitivity” training become a source of fraud and harm?
Where are the limits or boundaries of our moral and professional responsibilities as “sensitive” educators?
To what extent do we actually harm our students, colleagues and institutions by compromising the truth, in any of its forms – and with it, true academic freedom – for the purpose of not hurting a student’s or colleagues’ “feelings” or “opinions” or cultural-bound ideologies?
How far are we willing to go to be collegial, reasonable, fair, gracious, understanding, generous and loving in heart and spirit, mature and “with it”?
And at what point does being overly sensitive (or cowardly) become unethical?
Is it “mature” and “reasonable” to knowingly teach the subject matter of a course incorrectly – or to be silent when we know it is – in order to be “sensitive”?
Given that some courses lend themselves to an “objective” subject matter more so than others – where is the dividing line between fact and fantasy in teaching the subject matter of any given field?
Are we not suppose to teach something about our subject matter because it might offend someone? Or because our student evaluations might be lower?
For example, if there were students in my ethics class who were from a culture or a community in which cannibalism was taught and practiced, should I refrain from presenting critiques of their sincerely-held beliefs about cannibalism because it would embarrass or anger them?
Should I teach that cannibalism is ethically acceptable – or at least as ethically acceptable as any other ethical position?
If there were students in my ethics class who were child molesters or thieves, should I present material that disagrees with their opinion that molesting children or stealing the property of others is ethically acceptable – or should I teach that it is just as acceptable as any other strongly held belief or opinion?
Should I “modify” ethicists’ actual historical theories to “make” them say what would be considered “politically correct” today?
Should I leave out certain ethical theories (or certain parts of ethical theories) because they might make some students uneasy?
Isn’t that really academic fraud?
In order not to offend anyone in my metaphysics class, should I purposely reword, transliterate or incorrectly quote or interpret Plato’s, Aristotle’s, Descartes’ or Kant’s treatises and theories to make them more “palatable” or less “offensive” to my students or colleagues who disagree with those philosophers’ theories?
I was recently interviewed for a position to teach what I am now teaching -the history of philosophy. I was directed to teach only Plato, Plotinus – and then skip to Descartes and Hume – and to please leave out the pre-Socratics, Aristotle and all of the medieval philosophers (especially Thomas Aquinas) – because the students (they thought) would find it “boring”! Is leaving out 900 years of the history of philosophy in a history of philosophy course really a bad case of “political correctness” – or, more harshly, academic fraud?
Has “political correctness” really become co-extensive with academic fraud? Would deliberately modifying those philosophical texts be any less fraud than, say, deliberately modifying and falsifying established scientific texts?
What if a chemistry professor taught students that there were only 12 elements in the periodic chart; or a music professor taught students that there were only 4 piano keys in an octave, or that Beethoven’s fifth symphony was really his first, etc. Isn’t that academic fraud?
If chemists and biologists are now held professionally and legally accountable for negligently misinterpreting or deliberately producing fraudulent and incorrect data and theories – why shouldn’t other academics be held equally accountable for their own brand of academic fraud?
As “politically incorrect” as this may sound, not all translations of historical works are equal, and not all interpretations of those works are valid. In fact, not all ideas and theories – historical or contemporary – are equally valid or sound.4 Some ideas and theories match reality and some do not. Some can be successfully defended, and some can not.
And ideas and theories have concrete consequences. When they are based on the subject matter of a field which has been abjectly politicized, the damage in terms of valid and sound knowledge is alone sufficient for concern.5
When they are also applied6 to innocent and unsuspecting human beings, institutions and societies, the negative impact of inaccurate, indefensible and politicized ideas and theories can be long-term and cause devastating personal, familial, academic, institutional, social and cultural damage.
Perhaps you fervently want to believe that the world is composed of monads or muons or juggleskoots – you are certainly “free” to think whatever ideas you wish.
But you are not necessarily “free” to apply them, or to put them into action. Much less should our public policies be based on them.
Is there discrimination against pro-life faculty?
I also question if in the academy more and more pressure is being brought to bear on “pro-life” – or “politically incorrect” – faculty members to modify, modulate, leave out or even deliberately alter that part of their subject matters which in any way is offensive to the pro-choice (read: pluralistic or multi-cultural) belief-systems of students and colleagues alike.
If so, is resistance met with isolation, loss of friends, tenure and grants – and low student evaluations?
But of more concern than being “politically correct”, or of hurting someone’s feelings, educators need to be at least as concerned about the inevitable decay of academic standards (and with it the academy itself), and the real harm that consequentially plays out.
Again, an important distinction has been lost. Being pro-life should not equate with insensitivity or with academic incompetence. If educational materials are found to be fraudulent, or course contents found to be no more than worthless collections of intellectual ramblings based on historically or factually incorrect theses, any educator and any institution has the moral and professional responsibility to fairly address these problems.
Yet it is abundantly clear that any such attempts by pro-life educators to factually and historically correct educational materials are often just rejected out of hand as being “emotional” and “religious-based, right-wing radical ploys”.
These educators are effectively barred from any further access to the system, and then severely discriminated against for even raising these questions in the first place. Shades of Voegelin! No official academic vehicle of recourse is now effective or available to these pro-life educators.
But judging from the hundreds of personal accounts I have received over the last several years, the situation is so acute that it will probably soon force these educators to turn to the law for justice and redress in current employment practices in academia and research.
One would think that educators and educational institutions would be more concerned about incorrect facts and theories. One doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand that abstract theories and ideas – especially if they are really incorrect – have serious and very real concrete consequences when applied.
Furthermore, like the domino effect, incorrect theories and ideas (or facts) once “set in concrete” in one field can then be transferred to other fields and harmfully applied – a phenomenon I will call “conceptual transfer”.
I will present briefly three short examples from my own academic experiences in science and bioethics, to briefly demonstrate how the concept of “personhood”, already so successfully set in the abortion debates by academia, is transferable and applicable to the issues of human embryo research and psychiatric research.
Considerable concrete harm is the consequence.
WHAT IS AN ESPERANTIST?
Following in his father’s footsteps, [Soros] spent many an afternoon as a student in London propounding Esperantism at Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park.This means Soros speaks Esperanto, the linguistic construction universally considered naive in its intention, of replacing existing linguistic challenges with a synthetic language.This synthetic language is to delude others by inverting ‘empathy’.
LETS KEEP IT REAL SIMPLE, ITS ALL CALLED “LYING” OR “STEALING REALITY”, IN ORDER TO INDUCE ANOTHER DECEPTIVELY TO ACHIVE YOUR ENDS. WHEN THIS IS APPLIED TO INVESTMENTS, ITS CALLED ” PUMP/DUMP” MARKET. WHEN ONE DEVELOPS A MARKET USING THE TECHNIQUES OF ESPERANTISM, ITS CALLED “INSIDER TRADING”.
Personhood” in the abortion debates:
The current concept of “fetal personhood” was established over a period of about 20 years, primarily through the efforts of “bioethicists” who sought to combine some scientific claim about embryogenesis with some philosophical (or theological) theory of “personhood”.
These theories claim that real “personhood” (and therefore real ethical and legal rights and protections) do not begin until some embryological marker event during embryogenesis.
Thus the concept denotes “delayed personhood” – and thus abortion is ethically permissible up to some selected biological marker event. But how valid or sound are these theories of “delayed personhood”? By what criteria are they determined to be true or false?
In analyzing over 23 “representative” arguments for “delayed personhood”, I found that in virtually all 23 arguments the science used was objectively incorrect, the philosophy used was historically incorrect or theoretically indefensible, and that none of the conclusions even followed logically from their premises.
Just the statistical odds of this happening by chance are mind-boggling. All of this I have presented in great detail to this conference before.7
How is it possible that such massive scientific mis-information has been flowing from our scholarly and academic institutions for so many years – without correction?
Citing just one example, the blatant and purposeful use of incorrect “human” embryology (which was, in fact, amphibian embryology) has been taught in academia for over 15 years in bioethics courses, bioethics conferences, incorporated into bioethics text books and computer software – even filed in the MEDLINE computer searches of the National Library of Medicine under BIOETHICSLINE, and thus literally circulated around the world.
Clifford Grobstein,8 the embryologist most responsible for this (who is not even a human embryologist) has recently acknowledged on more than one occasion that his “human” embryology was and is incorrect. His response was simply: “But so what – what’s the big deal?”
The “big deal” – aside from being scientific fraud – is that the moral and legal status of the early human embryo and fetus in those debates has been based on that wrong “human” embryology. For many years theologian Richard McCormick9 has published his arguments for “delayed personhood” based on this science.
For many years lawyer John Robertson10 has published his arguments for the status of human embryos and fetuses as property (and has subsequently won court battles), quoting Grobstein’s “science” virtually for pages in his legal publications and briefs. Mountains of volumes of similar examples of incorrect science have been pumped into the academic and political systems, and are bulging the shelves of our university libraries. Indeed, such grossly incorrect science has permeated our highest courts since Roe v Wade (1973).
In that watershed decision, the Supreme Court contended that there was no scientific or medical consensus as to when the life of a human being begins. That was scientifically false then, and is scientifically false now. In fact, the U.S. Senate held hearings shortly after their decision, to determine if in fact there really was such a consensus.
After hearing scientific and medical testimony from around the world, it was incontrovertibly determined that there was, indeed, a scientific and medical consensus that the life of a human being begins at fertilization. But, it was countered, women now had a constitutional right to privacy to deal with their pregnancies; the scientific and medical consensus was not an issue any more.
Again, Dr. C. Ward Kischer,11 who has been teaching human embryology for over 30 years, researched the scientific credentials of the 167 “scientists” who authored an amicus curiae brief in support of the Webster case and its “scientific” assumptions of “delayed personhood”.
Of the 167 scientists, only 31 could even be classified as developmental biologists, and only one of those was credentialed in embryology per se – and he was not even a human embryologist.
Does the Supreme Court not care about the scientific veracity of the amicus briefs which are presented to them by scientific “experts”, on which they ground so many of their important and far-reaching decisions? Is the Supreme Court basing its decisions on “political correctness”, or on the objectively correct science, the Constitution and the laws of this land?
The Supreme Court has refused to even hear the correct scientific arguments,12 for if they did, they would have to reverse the Roe decision. And the women in this country are not yet “ready to hear the truth”.
The philosophy used in these debates is just as bad. It is either grossly historically inaccurate, or a reductio ad rationalism or empiricism (the orphaned and embarrassing historical offshoots of Descartes’ unworkable metaphysics, epistemology and anthropology).13
The definitions of “personhood” inherent in these philosophical systems contain an inherent mind/body split. In short, there is no interaction possible – either theoretically or concretely – between the mind and the body which are separated from each other.
Thus they are both theoretically and practically untenable and unworkable – a fact amazingly lost on many contemporary “expert” philosophers.
Hence either “rational attributes” (autonomy, willing, loving, interacting with the world around one, etc., from rationalism) and/or “sentience” (the ability to feel pain and pleasure, from empiricism) have now become the currently fashionable criteria for “personhood”.
The concrete practical results of using these theoretically deficient theories were systematically inevitable. Since empirically we know that full “rational attributes” and full “sentience” are not present until well after birth, the infanticide of normal healthy human infants is considered morally permissible by more than just a few contemporary academics.
Peter Singer, of Monash University in Australia, founder of “animal rights” philosophy, and now president of the International Bioethics Association, deduced correctly (although from false premises) when he wrote many years ago:
“I have argued that the life of a fetus is of no greater value than the life of a non-human animal at a similar level of rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, capacity to feel, etc., and that since no fetus is a person, no fetus has the same claim to life as a person. Now it must be admitted that these arguments apply to the newborn baby as much as to the fetus. A week old baby is not a rational and self-conscious being, and there are many non-human animals whose rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, capacity to feel, and so on, exceed that of a human baby a week, a month, or even a year old. If the fetus does not have the same claim to life as a person, it appears that the newborn baby does not either, and the life of a newborn baby is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”14 (emphasis added)
From selective bits and pieces of the historic systems of rationalism and empiricism have also evolved the present bioethics principles of autonomy, justice, beneficence and non-maleficence – otherwise known as “the Georgetown mantra” of bioethics principles, or the Belmont principles.
These principles have virtually defined the field of bioethics since its inception. Most bioethics textbooks, conferences, courses and think tanks – world-wide – have been exclusively based on them.
More than considerable numbers of medical, healthcare and research policies and decisions – as well as local, state, national and international regulations and guidelines – have been as well.
Yet these bioethics principles are fundamentally fraudulent.15Even Albert Jonsen,16 one of the several originators of these principles during the 1975 National Commission, related recently that in order to address our pluralistic society, the few members of that commission who were really philosophers decided to abandon their traditional philosophical training and discipline in the search for more pluralistically-pleasing principles.
At bottom these new principles, he implies, were basically made up (one might say, fabricated) from bits and pieces of Kant and Mill, with a smattering of Rawls mixed in.
One has to seriously question the credentials of these “philosophers” to begin with, if they saw in advance no theoretical problems in combining separate bits and pieces of different and contradictory philosophical systems, and expected that such “mental constructs” could be philosophically valid, sound or defensible.
For a long time there has existed an uneasiness and ambivalence toward these principles from real philosophers as well as from real practitioners in the field who were “expected” to apply them.
Early attempts to constructively criticize or correct them were perceived by the bioethics gurus in almost paranoiac fashion as sabotage, and effectively barred. Or they were dismissed by professionals, even within pro-life, as too complicated and technical, too focused on the “baby” and not enough on the “mother”, “silly”, professionally incompetent or irrelevant. But lately there has been a rising tide of articles and books, both here and abroad, which are openly and severely critical of these principles and of their application.
Even Daniel Callahan17 himself, founder and president of the Hastings Center, the oldest bioethics think tank, has recently published an article in which he frankly admits the abject failure of these bioethics principles.
His “new” solution is to be found in “communitarianism” (which could easily be “molded” into utilitarianism), and he ends with the consoling words that this should keep bioethicists employed for at least the next 25 years!
Some tribute to the integrity and motives of the architects of these bioethics principles, which have reigned supreme in almost totalitarian fashion for over 20 years. How did the newly created field of bioethics manage to take virtual control of so many related fields in so short a time?
How could such butchering of sound science and of traditional historical philosophical systems, and the pure fabrication of both theoretically and practically indefensible theories, have taken place right before our eyes – even “in our face”, one might say? With the aid of willing “scientists”, “bioethicists”, “philosophers”, “theologians” and “public policy makers” – outside and inside pro-life – “delayed personhood” has consequently been simply declared to begin at some arbitrarily designated embryological point during embryogenesis.
Who in bioethics is responsible and accountable for the immeasurable harm which has resulted from the applications of these “theories”, which were based directly on now-admittedly fake science and philosophically untenable and unworkable bioethics principles? No one? No sanctions?
No corrections? Just a fascinating, stimulating and harmless “intellectual exercise” or amusing “thought experiment”? These theories have been allowed to be perpetuated for so long now, that they have become ingrained in the academy as well as in our mainstream American culture.
The “dumbing” and the “numbing” of America is well on its way. Why haven’t more competent scientists and philosophers spoken out? Perhaps they are silent because they would loose their friends, jobs, tenures or grants. Or maybe it is because their student ratings would go down, since it would embarrass students who, e.g., have innocently procured abortions, thinking that it was justifiable because the early human embryo or fetus is just a blob of tissues, and not a real “person” yet?
Has there been no real harm to the students, faculty, educational institutions – and to our society in general – from these academically engendered and incorrect theories of “delayed personhood”? Is there no real responsibility and accountability for the perpetuation of these fake “theories” in the academy by “professional” educators, theories which are so transparently and obviously incorrect and inaccurate? Haven’t we been here before?
True academic freedom requires the intellectually honest give and take of all opinions and arguments – not just those from the “politically correct” – whichever side of the “political” aisle. Unless those dialogues are based on correct educational materials, no real dialogue is possible, and the very raison d’etre of the academy is destroyed.
Ideas have consequences – especially when they are applied. No where is this more obvious than in the debates about abortion, human embryo research and psychiatric research.
The purposeful manipulation and fabrication of educational materials in the liberal arts – for whatever reason – and the imposition of these defective “mental constructs” on students, educators and institutions alike, constitute academic fraud, causing very serious and life-long damage and harm.
As professional educators we should recognize that such harm is every bit as serious and concretely damaging as the kind of harm engendered by scientific fraud.
Our response should be as concrete as that of the scientific community: acknowledge our responsibilities to prevent it; provide mechanisms to detect and correct it (especially in the form of public, published retractions of incorrect information in the journals and books); and understand that we are accountable to the American public if we do not.
One of the most unpopular jobs for philosophers is to at least formulate and “raise the questions” that nobody else wants to raise. I have formulated and raised a few questions here which I think need urgent attention – but I leave it up to my colleagues, who have vastly more experience than I, to “answer the questions”!
Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.
DeSales School of Theology
We’ve Figured Him Out!
(Pig in a poke means: an offering or deal that is foolishly accepted without being examined first. A poke means sack.)They wanted so much to believe Barack Obama was somehow better and different from other ultra-leftists that they simply took him on faith.They ignored his anti-white writings in his books.They ignored his quiet acceptance of hysterical anti-American diatribes by his minister, Jeremiah Wright.They ignored his refusal to explain years at a time of his life as a student.They ignored his ultra-left record as a “community organizer,” Illinois state legislator, and Senator.The American people ignored his total zero of an academic record as a student and teacher, his complete lack of scholarship when he was being touted as a scholar.Now, the American people are starting to wake up to the truth. Barack Obama is a super likeable super leftist, and not a fan of this country.
The American people have already awakened to the truth that the stimulus bill — a great idea in theory — was really an immense bribe to Democrat interest groups, and in no way helped all Americans.
The American people already know that Mr. Obama’s plan to lower health costs while expanding coverage and bureaucracy is a myth, a promise of something that never was and never can be —
“a bureaucracy lowering costs in a free society.” Either the costs go up or the free society goes away… an historical truth.
These are perilous times. Mrs. Hillary Clinton, our Secretary of State, has given Iran the go-ahead to have nuclear weapons, an unqualified betrayal of the nation. Now, we face a devastating loss of freedom at home in health care. It will be joined by controls on our lives to “protect us” from global warming, itself largely a fraud, if believed to be caused by man. She has also signed on to a Small Firearms Treaty at the U.N. This is a back door gun control move. This is approved by the Senate and a 2nd Amendment majority doesn’t exist in the Senate now. It will supersede all U.S. Law and the 2nd Amendment. All citizen possession will be eliminated through confiscation. Just Like Great Britain and Australia .
Mr. Obama knows Americans are getting wise and will stop him if he delays at all in taking away our freedoms. There is his urgency and our opportunity. Once freedom is lost, America is lost. Wake up, beloved America .
- Radical Islam Joins the DNC (redstate.com)
- Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood revives barbaric practice of crucifixion (fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com)
- Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood Begins Crucifying Opponents – Reports (conservativeread.com)
- Crucifixions are back (geneveith.com)
- Syrian Muslim Brotherhood To Form Political Party (counterjihadreport.com)
- Muslim Brotherhood Crucifies Opponents (personalliberty.com)
- Arab dictators and radical Islam – from february 2011 (dacke2012.wordpress.com)