Prudential Financial just interrupted my country music station with an ad for retirement services, featuring "Mujahid Abdul Rashid" as their exemplary customer.
America is fading fast.
But when you elect a race scam artist like Barack Hussein Obama to the presidency, who could be surprised? I watch him sitting there in the White House and I feel like I'm living in an occupied country.
If I were Consul of America, all the authors and supporters of the 1960's immigration reform acts would get the Pope Formosus treatment, Edward Kennedy being first in line.
America is fading fast.
But when you elect a race scam artist like Barack Hussein Obama to the presidency, who could be surprised? I watch him sitting there in the White House and I feel like I'm living in an occupied country.
If I were Consul of America, all the authors and supporters of the 1960's immigration reform acts would get the Pope Formosus treatment, Edward Kennedy being first in line.
10 comments:
A couple days ago all Toronto was astonish'd that a Madrassah was found to have "treacherous Jews" etc anti-semitism in its curriculum. And you must admit it is very astonishing that Muslims must learn the meaning of "true Islam" from secularist journalists, namely that Islam reveres Jews as a people of the Book, and if anything now is the time to consider the anti-semitism of Christendom's Crusades a few years ago.
In any case, the principal of the Madrassah "unreservedly apologized," presumably as shock'd as anyone that anti-semitism had crept into his school's curriculum.
Yet curiousness abounds when a Toronto print journalist ends up defending the school's curriculum on grounds that »Like the Bible , Muslim scripture contains a lot of material that, by modern standards, would be considered sexist, homophobic or even anti-Semitic …
»The prospect of a human rights tribunal telling you which Suras and Hadiths you are and aren’t allowed to preach in your mosques may sound ridiculous. But it’s not.«
Not true at all: lots of "ridiculous" and harmful stuff actually happens.
Besides, the main point is not what is in the founding documents of a world religion, but what that religion's clerics and laity are doing with that religion. Is any real-world version of Islam today right now going forward with a "social justice" agenda that includes not only male equality but also gender equality and homosexual rights, not to mention religious freedom?
But the journalist could seem to be implying that Muslims not only have a formal right under the Charter and anglo-saxon constitutionality in general to teach that Jews as such are opposed to Islam as such, but also that Muslims are right to do so because the Koran and the Hadiths are anti-semitic. »this portion of the madrassah curriculum, and some of the pages that follow, is largely an abbreviated version [of the anti-semitism in Islam's foundational documents]«
Journalist: »You can call this “anti-Semitic hate speech” if you like — but in doing so, you have to call the whole Koran “anti-Semitic hate speech".« Is this a traditionalist demand for repristination of patriarchal religions back to their original homophobia, misogyny, xenophobia [shirk-rejection, e.g. Chalcedonian Xnty, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Hegel], and with the chosenness of the Jews suppress'd, and the history of metaphysical revelation of man from Homer and Plato to Nietzsche and Heidegger?
This same journalist perhaps would see especially homophobia in Christianity. Continuing his defense of the madrassah's true-to-the-Koran anti-semitism, he writes: »Either you tolerate an established religion and its ancient, hateful (whether to Jews or gays) texts, or you don’t. Yet many of the same folks howling about the East End Madrassah would be scandalized if the human-rights machinery of state were brought down on a Christian school for proclaiming God’s wrath against homosexuals.«
This is bizarre. First, Ontario's publically funded Catholic schools aren't proclaiming God's wrath against homosexuals. Even Popes John Paul 2 and Benedict 16 aren't doing this when they maintain the doctrine that homosexual relations are forbidden (by the natural law, applying to all humans). Perhaps a few very sectarian Prot groups in Canada are declaring God's wrath against homosexuals, but basically even the denominations including the RCC that oppose "marriage equality" don't do so in terms of God's wrath.
Secondly, when Christian churches far from declaring God's wrath against homosexuals merely venture to assert that "marriage" is between a man and a woman the howlers howl hard against these churches.
As this journalist notes elsewhere in his article, the howlers in fact DIDN'T howl when Canada's "human-rights machinery of state" was brought down against a guy who "quoted Bible passages, such as Leviticus 18:22." (Actually he simply distributed leaflets printed with »Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 Romans 1:26«. In terms of the specific discussion of _marriage_ he should have directed his readers to Genesis 2:24; Matt 19:5.)
Jews and their sense of humour. Consider the value rankingin this statement:
"Using religion to promote hatred among youth is not just offensive and abhorrent – it shows a stunning disregard for Canada’s basic values of decency and tolerance,” said David Spiro, Greater Toronto Co-Chair of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.
So much for all these Bible-related Abrahamic religions full of hatreds? Let's turn to the East for enlightenment and peace? Depends what you mean by "peace," I guess.
For the other day I was noticing that Buddhism and Buddhism-esque stances validate really serious hatred, especially that Western civilization or (white) America etc deserves total immolation like that experienced by the cities of the plain -- because these civilizations have not eagerly scrambled forward to implement the decrees of the Enlighten'd that the West and America and whites must do compassion for all living stuff, and especially for the Enlighten'd.
And maybe Schadenfreude via the law of karma is insufficient. I mean, maybe it isn't enough that greedy uncompassionate tycoons receive what they grasp, namely worthless money and jewels, rahther than the true riches of critical thinking and wisdom. Is there a felt need for an added-on kind of punishment to the intrinsic punishment of karma?
For instance,
»A culture that does not grasp the vital interplay between morality and power, which mistakes management techniques for wisdom, which fails to understand that the measure of a civilization is its compassion, not its speed or ability to consume, condemns itself to death.«
WWAS? What would Abraham say? (Genesis 18:22ff)
At least the president's new support for gay marriage provides additional evidence that he isn't a Muslim.
The president also appeal'd to Christianity for the public meaning and validity of gay marriage: »The thing at the root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the golden rule – you know treat others the way you would want to be treated.«
Possibly this and indeed the entirety of the preaching of MLK violates "strict separationism" of church and state as articulated by the Supreme Court, but prior to the devising of strict separationism after WW2, Christian doctrine had a public meaning -- in order to provide American morals with a substance that Lockean-Montesquieuean calculation cannot.
Liberals may say that a Christian rationale is unimportant, but Marx declares that unless the state can be freed from reveal'd Christian and Jewish meaning systems man cannot enjoy his finite freedom without the hassles involved where the social ensemble man confronts political man as his other or alienated self (On the Jewish Question, passim).
It may be that a Christian state even of legitimated or charismatic kings — "dominion founded in grace" — is only a "state founded in rubbish" sc chandalas, or a mirror-state and Mary[etym rebellion] state ("myrmidon") of the universal church (ibid, Marx-Engels Reader, p. 38). But who ever minded being call'd a chandala or a Lumpenprole?
Indeed, desublimational higher man threw high culture in the garbage heap or ash bin of history on grounds that it is all oppressive militarist sexism and homophobic elitism and capitalist racism. So we chandalas confront the higher man as his other bearing the aspirations for enoblement and improvement that he rejected.
But considering directly the "golden rule" we must be careful to notice how this is apply'd. The president obviously doesn't mean that if Mr and Mrs Methodist Middle-Class American Pair Bond want any affirmation of their sexual arrangement they are obligated to affirm any and all sexual arrangements that their neighbours might be into -- for instance, plural marriage à la Islam, or open marriages, or what have you, gay or polymorphous or whatnot.
The president begins from American culture's special regard for marriage, and argues that this valuation must be extended to the pair bonds form'd via homosexual desire.
First off, the argument is one of necessity: homosexual desire makes a man incapable of loving a woman and wanting to marry her and being a good husband; therefore he his only relational option is gay. And so for lesbians, although with much more plausibility, imho.
But in fact the argument from inability, necessity etc is not welcome. Gay sexuality is as good as hetero sexuality. Gay pair bonds are as good as hetero pair bonds. And it is for this reason that American law and religion ought to validate gay marriage.
Sexual arrangements that are not pair bonds do not merit 'golden rule' treatment at least in this direct way. They may deserve legal protections as lifestyle freedom etc, but they don't measure up to the criteria of love and belonging that Christian doctrine lays down for marriage.
The golden rule doesn't oblige one to respect one's neighbour's polygamy or serial monogamy or swinging or etc etc. And American law and religion aren't obliged to respect such sexual arrangements. Perhaps protection as free expression, but not respect. The valuational distinction is definite.
In sum, the gay lifestyle as first celebrated by the Gay Liberation movement does not merit Christian respect. Only pair bonds that seriously intend to be monogamous and exclusive merit respect.
If there weren't this continuing valuation for "marriage" in the culture, there'd be no debate or discussion on gay relationships. The state would have simply thrown marriage law into the garbage as outmoded irrelevancy along with horsehair wigs for American Supreme Court justices. People could do whatever they sexually wanted without the state offering any valuational opinion one way or another.
Perhaps some American liberals would like American law and politics and religion to arrive at the situation where no valuational opinion at all was offer'd on sexuality, and they feel that enshrining gay marriage as equal with hetero marriage is a step toward that aiôn. But the possibility is that cultural stuff is not moving in that direction. The state will never be value neutral on sexuality.
The Golden Rule is not a 'neutral' or formalist or positivist rule. "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them" would sound an enormity, not an ideal.
Try asserting that Presbyterians ought to validate Maoism since Presbyterians want Maoists to validate Presbyterianism,
or try telling anti-capitalists that they ought to validate capitalism since they want capitalists to validate anti-capitalism,
or try telling libertarians that they ought to validate Nietzschean genealogy since they want Nietzschean genealogists to validate libertarianism.
The Golden Rule is appealing as an ideal among "Selfs of good will." (Jesus goes in a different direction when he advises "Do good to your enemies, and pray for those that hate you." He is not so obtuse as to suppose that an [undualistic good] "good will" is really a principle for agreement among Selfs.)
But this is the curious thing about Christofascism's homophobia: Paul declares that idolatry provides a freedom-from that results in what we call homosexuality (females quest-lead others, alephs, [metallaô+ san Doric sigma, sc hissing sizô] re the natural function into a sieve, tent etc [greek letters sineistên cf nt 4617] alongside nature. the males conceal'd, cf kuffar'd [greek letters 'saphen' sc js5603 SPhN. maybe also a witty hint at Sappho] Romans 1: 26f.
But ease in the world doesn't mean ease in the underground: when the will-to-power ego sum is benighted by idolatry (the Greeks don't present the zodiac Rom 1:23 as a partial concealment of the natural function cf Gen 3:22 contrast 3:7) God can't rule and the subterranean society is still a war of all against all Rom 1:29-32 in selfings that must end in rule by Lord Death whose personnel perhaps feel pleasure in contempt of the Selfs (v. 32).
For Rousseau and Marx sort-of following him (cf On the Jewish Question), the exit from the bind of Lockean theism (no toleration for atheist selfing) over which hangs the threat of dominion founded in grace or revelation by Hobbes and the Bible to state personnel is changing human nature. Perhaps desublimation will succeed in changing human nature where Rousseau's and Marx's versions fail'd? -- a buddhism of detachment on grounds that desublimation yields only worthless selfs that neighbouring Selfs wouldn't have any motive to steal? because self units of desublimation have no possibility, apparently, of Self-transcendence? -- thus society isn't a 'war of all against all' and no need for or any possibility of a conscious ego sum in _the_ world?
I guess we'll learn some year whether this project has been successful.
Why do "progressives" in Canada never complain about Canada funding tax-supported religious education? Don't they have the separation of church and state?
Post a Comment