Monday, September 25, 2017

My thoughts on the same sex marriage vote

Hi everyone,

I have been preoccupied with life for the last 4 years so I thought now would be a good time to come back in the political spectrum if you will.

This article will be mainly for Australians as the postal vote doesn't affect anyone internationally.

Right now there is a postal vote going on in Australia to determine whether or not same-sex couples should be allowed to be married.

Now in a democratic country such as Australia (at least democratic in relation to their values), you would think that resolving this issue would be a no-brainer.

You would think that same-sex couples would be given the ability to get married. In fact, there was already a bill in motion to achieve that same effect without infringing upon the religious freedoms of churches to not wed gay couples.

This bill would have given civil(not religious) celebrants the right to marry gay couples without forcing religious celebrants to do the same thing.

And to me in a democratic nation that seems perfectly fine. It preserves the rights of churches to not have to wed gay couples while giving gay couples the option to find civil celebrants who can wed them legally.

This would seem like a win-win situation for everyone.

Also, it doesn't make sense to say that everyone has equal rights if straight couples have the right to wed while gay couples don't. I mean if the government tried to propose a measure prohibiting people from marrying if they were of certain religious creed or race there would be massive outrage about that.

Yet why do members of parliament not want to give same-sex couples the right to get married?

Well as far as I can tell the issue seems to be related to religious ideas (or what some would say bigotry but not me though). Now I personally am a Christian and while I could get into a debate about how the word homosexual didn't really appear in the English translation of the Bible until 18th century and that the word in the bible which is translated as meaning homosexual is Arsenokoitēs which doesn't particularly mean homosexual as there are other words in new testament Greek that can be used to represent homosexual.

Now in regards to the word Arsenokoitēs the best explanation that we have of the word is from a Jewish contemporary of Paul's called Philo who believed that the word meant shrine prostitute which referred to the practice of having small children be sex slaves for the sex cults that existed in ancient time.

But all of this is beside the point. Because whether or not you choose to believe that homosexuality is a sin or not is beside the point. You're free to believe as you wish. That is your democratic right (or at least should be).

What is the point is that religious beliefs are not supposed to affect the policies and laws that politicians produce as there is supposed to be a wall between church and state. This is because the government is not supposed to tell you what to believe in terms of your beliefs in religion, ideology or sexuality.

If politicians want to believe that homosexuality is a sin then that is their right but it's the manner in which the no campaign and those politicians opposing same-sex marriage go about opposing the same-sex marriage that in my opinion is the problem.

I carefully examined the arguments of both sides as opposed to just labelling one side as bigots and the other as pro-gay propagandists or leftists.

The vote yes campaign seems to only be about giving gay couples the right to marry and nothing else. A popular slogan seems to be "All Love is Love".

This is very simple and nor do they seem to be trying to push an agenda other than the right to marry for gay couples.

Now if this vote is only about giving gay people the right to marry well what is the problem that the vote no campaigners have with this?

Well according to them, changing the traditional definition of marriage is going to open the way to changes to policies.

According to the most recent vote no add campaign which can be seen below. Voting yes to same-sex marriage is going to cause all sorts of changes to be made to schools and policies.

Now the ABC show the hack put up a good article doing the fact check of the above article and while I won't just repeat the article verbatim as you can read it yourself as it's a short article I will offer what I think are the valid points from it in my own terms.

There are numerous concerns referred to in the video but most seem to be unfounded or not related to the actual vote on same-sex marriage.

For instance, one lady claims that her son was told that he could wear a dress if he felt like it but this has been disputed by the actual principal of the Frankston High School has disputed this and there seems to be no evidence that I can find that corroborates her story, in fact, the above video offers no evidence of her son being told that at all.

Much of the video seems to be in reference to the Safe Schools program and how allowing same-sex couples to marry is somehow going to have an effect on our school programs but these are not interrelated.

The vote is simply about giving gay couples the right to get married that's all.

It has nothing to do with anything else. Now I understand that there are parents who have concerns about their children being indoctrinated with pro-gay propaganda(not that I can think any) or being concerned about their children exposed to lessons about sexuality particularly at a young age but these having nothing to do with the same-sex vote. They aren't related at all. They are separate issues.

Now the video also points out that "Kids in year 7 are being asked to role-play being in a same-sex relationship" in the Safe Schools program but once again this has nothing to do with this vote and unfortunately(or fortunately depending on your viewpoint) this program at least in Victoria is going to be mandatory in state high schools regardless of the vote. If you want to oppose that then fine but once again this has nothing to do with the same sex vote.

Now the last two concerns in the video refer to how countries with same-sex laws apparently have compulsory programs for students in regards to same-sex that parents will lose the right to choose whether or not their children participate in a Safe Schools style program but as the article points out in apart one exemption in one state which is in Ontario Canada this just isn't the case.

And Canada, in my opinion, has some over the top laws on political correctness anyway that you probably won't see in Australia.

These arguments raised by the no campaign have nothing to do with children and education. In my opinion, these are just excuses as has been pointed out the same-sex vote has nothing to do with the Safe Schools program or how children will be educated.

It is a straight-up question on whether or not gay couples should have the right to marry and that's it.

Now if you don't want to gay people to be able to be married that's fine. I don't agree with you but I won't call you a bigot or anything else. You have a right to believe what you want but then at least let's be honest about why you want to vote no.

Like that girl Madeline who was fired by Madeline Sims for using a Facebook Vote No filter. She was honest about saying that her view on God is why she chooses to vote no and that is fine as it is her democratic right.

This is what I find so abhorrent about the vote no campaign as it is using fear of the hypothetical to push its agenda and conflating the issue with other arguments that have nothing to do with it.

My father said something interesting yesterday which is that when it comes to racists it's not the racist country bumpkins that are dangerous because they are the way they are due to ignorance and because of their lifestyle but it's the educated ones that are dangerous because the educated ones should know better and they are more deceptive about pushing their agenda.

Now while I obviously wouldn't call the vote no campaigners bigots or racist the above argument rings true when it comes to this particular issue the vote no campaigners and people like Tony Abbott are using deceptive arguments and conflating the issue instead of saying I don't believe in gay couples being able to be married because I either think's it unnatural or because of my religious beliefs.

The ACL should simply have made their campaign for the argument on biblical grounds instead of trying to deceive people in voting their way by presenting half-truths and misrepresentation of facts.

What happened to the Democrats I thought they were supposed to keep the bastards honest.

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

News on Upcoming Articles

Hi everyone.

My apologies as it's been a while since I have written any articles but I have been researching some new topics so that I can provide a more in-depth and fact based articles on the following subjects as i believe that they are incredibly important to understanding our current and future political climate.

These article will touch on the following topics.

-The Iraq War as to how we got there. Why all the lies and deception by the bush administration and some interesting facts that you may not well know about including the reasons for why the Bush administration made up the lies that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction as well as lying about the connection between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda and why the Patriot Act is useless in protecting us from terrorists.

-An in-depth examination of the 9-11 Incident including the conspiracy theories but some more important facts which are corroborated in the official FBI report that leave some unanswered on why the United States attack iraq when all the evidence was pointing to an entirely different country.

-An article on the Israeli-Palestine conflict and which will talk about the facts of the conflict including a discussion of UN resolution 181 and 194 and how they tie into it and debunk the lies that numerous mass media have attempted to peddle across to a largely uninformed public.

Saturday, April 13, 2013

Noble Intentions can lead to the cruelest of crimes

This article was inspired by contemplation about the ills of the world and the recent religion vs. atheism debates and arguments that you see on YouTube, and on the TV debates as well. But, more importantly, the fact that there seems to be what I call a kind of two party system mentality forming in these debates.
I believe that most of the Christians in these debates end up being on the defensive because of the current misunderstanding that many people often have about the Middle East and 9-11. Atheists are jumping on the bandwagon to exploit that, but generally, these atheists tend to be under the impression that religious people are the cause of the world’s ills, and will often resort to arguments such as the crusades or Hitler in order to prove it.
On the other end of the spectrum, you have the Christian right, and those fundamentalists who fit in the camp that believe that America's ills are due to the fact that they have become too much of a secular nation. They blame the rise of atheism for this. They also proclaim that God hates homosexuals, and America's support for such homosexuals is the reason for America's ills. They believe making America into a Christian nation will solve all its problems.
On the Christians’ side, you also have those well-read individuals who counter such arguments by stating that the only thing Atheism has ever brought to the world is genocide(like Mr Dinesh D'Souza).  Other's refer to the Stalin and Mao regimes of Communist Russia and China, as these two individuals were responsible for the largest mass murders the world has ever known. According to the Guinness Book of World Records, Stalin is in first place, with about 66 million judicial killings during his regime, and Mao is in second place, with 23.7 million killed during his regime. (This is just the number of judicial killings per the Guinness World Records under judicial killing, as the numbers Mao killed by starvation are much higher—such as 45 million in 4 years due to the Great Leap Forward). It is also well known that one of the driving beliefs of these regimes was that the world would be better off without religion, and they attempted to exterminate the religious people in their countries.
People often look back on the atrocities that were committed by the Hitler, Stalin and Mao regimes, and look at them as if they were disgusting, evil degenerates of the most twisted order and they can't possibly understand how people could be so cruel. It is a testament to that fact that in our modern culture, describing someone as like Hitler or calling someone a fascist is now a derogatory slur of the worst order .
But, if you look into the history of these individuals, you will see that none of these leaders thought of themselves as evil. In fact, they were patriots of their countries and did what they did out of what they believed to be noble intentions. Now, in Hitler's case, people often refer to the fact that he persecuted the Jews and carried out his atrocities on them because of his belief in God. They will refer to Mein Kampf , but if you actually research deeper, several statements that he made will shed some light on this.
I explained this in detail in a previous article about Hitler's regime.  I explained that Hitler was referring to “Positive Christianity,” which was the religion of the Nazi party, in which participants believed that Jesus was not Jewish, but was of Germanic (Nordic or Aryan) decent, and that he was an organiser and fighter of the Jews—which would obviously clash with the Catholic version, in which Jesus was a Jewish pacifist.
While it cannot be conclusively proven what Hitler's own actual beliefs were, it is known that the Nazi's party’s racist ideologies were completely different from the tenets of Catholicism, or any other religion for that matter.
What is known about Hitler is that he believed that the reason that Germany had been weakened was because degenerate elements had entered into its bloodstream (metaphorically speaking of course), and that through the use of racial hygiene and eugenics Germany could be made strong again.
This belief in racial hygiene and eugenics didn't just apply to his attitude towards the Jews, whom he regarded as an inferior race, for reasons such as they interbred too readily with those whom Hitler believed to be lower stock. It also applied to everyone whom Hitler regarded as inferior—such as those that had mental illnesses. He believed that the strong and racially pure should be allowed to produce children, and the weak and racially impure should be stopped from procreating.
In fact, one of the first laws that Hitler's regime passed after they took complete control of Germany was the "Law of Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring," which was passed in July the 14th 1933. This was quite early on, as the regime had only seized full control on April the 27th 1933.
This law required all doctors to notify the government of all their patients who suffered from any kind of mental illness (in some cases including alcoholism), as well as physical disabilities. The government would convene a court case to decide whether or not the individual would be sterilised. 400,000 people were sterilised (forcibly if necessary) by the end of his regime; this number is separate from the 6 million Jews that were killed during his regime.
So, it's safe to assume, based on the records of what he said and did, that Hitler did indeed attempt to apply his ideology of racial hygiene and eugenics in order to strengthen Germany. While most will consider him a monster (like I do), he was driven by a noble ideal of patriotism, and was doing what he believed had to be done to save Germany.
Now, to most, patriotism can seem like a noble thing, but Hitler's example illustrates how noble intentions can lead to the justification of great evil. Another example that one could consider to be the total opposite end of spectrum to Hitler is Joseph Stalin.
Stalin was an atheistic, communistic, anti-theistic dictator, and, like Lenin, he considered religion to be an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society, which would be a society where all resources and properties where shared out equally. For some, this could be considered a very noble ideal, since a world where everyone shared everything would be one without war, poverty, etc. But, Stalin is considered the largest mass murderer that history has ever known. He also killed 100,000 clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church in the name of creating his ideal communist society.
People consider Stalin to be a monster of the highest order, and while it may seem that Hitler—who was a fascist racist obsessed with racial hygiene and an anti-theistic, communistic dictator who believed in getting rid of social classes and creating the ideal communist society—may be on the completely opposite end of the spectrum, they both have one thing in common.
They were both driven by what they believed to be noble ideals, and it was for these noble ideals that they carried out terrible atrocities of oppression and murder, in order to create their version of an ideal society.
This is something that is almost never covered by people who speak or talk about these individuals. They are either used to condemn theists (in the case of Hitler) or condemn Atheists (Stalin, Mao ,etc.), or they are used to condemn communism or fascism. While I don't believe that communism works, and I am 100% against fascism, it is important to understand that these individuals were driven by noble ideals.
Simon Well wrote a very interesting quote about the above in Gravity and Grace, which was: "Evil, when we are in its power, is not felt as evil, but a necessity, or even a duty." Now, I think that quote is illustrative of how what may seem as noble ideals to some can lead to great evil.
The following excerpt from Mein Kampf, Chapter 2 will illustrate this perfectly:
Not until my fourteenth or fifteenth year did I begin to come across the word “Jew” with any frequency, partly in connection with political discussions.... For the Jew was still characterised for me by nothing but his religion, and therefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I maintained my rejection of religious attacks in this case as in others. Consequently, the tone, particularly that of the Viennese anti- Semitic press, seemed to me unworthy of the cultural tradition of a great nation. ... I was not in agreement with the sharp anti-Semitic tone, but from time to time I read arguments which gave me some food for thought. At all events, these occasions slowly made me acquainted with the man and the movement, which in those days guided Vienna's destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger (Karl Lueger (1844-1910), mayor of Vienna and leader of the Christian Social Party) and the Christian Social Party. The man and the movement seemed “reactionary” in my eyes.
My common sense of justice, however, forced me to change this judgement in proportion as I had occasion to become acquainted with the man and his work; and slowly my fair judgement turned to unconcealed admiration. Today, more than ever, I regard this man as the greatest German mayor of all times. ... How many of my basic principles were upset by this change in my attitude toward the Christian Social movement! My views with regard to anti-Semitism thus succumbed to the passage of time, and this was my greatest transformation of all. ...Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord
While Mein Kampf may not be useful as a historical document, as it was most likely intended for propaganda purposes, it certainly lends an understanding to the psychology of the time in Germany. In my previous article about Hitler's regime, I explained that he had a master plan to actually get rid of the Catholic church after the end of the war, and how his beliefs differed from Catholicism, but this excerpt illustrates how effective this type of propaganda can be.
According to the book, initially Hitler rejected religious attacks on Jews on the grounds of human tolerance, but then his common sense of justice forced him to change his opinion, because in his opinion, he believed that the Christian social party’s anti-Semitism was in self-defence.
No other excerpt better illustrates how seemingly noble ideals can turn someone away from tolerance. How many Germans do you think would have turned towards anti-Semitism in the name of common justice after reading this book?
This is the biggest problem with noble intentions. When they lead away from tolerance and judge people based on either religious beliefs, race, or creed, it can lead to great evil. But, because those who have those noble ideologies believe that what they are doing is their duty, it can allow them to justify atrocious things as the means to enacting their noble ideologies, whether it be creating the ultimate German state, or creating the ultimate communist state.
Now, I am going to make a reference to the Christian bible, as I believe it should adequately describe an interesting perspective on the point that I am making. Often, people will point to the Old Testament as one of the most barbaric religious books in existence. It is hard to argue with that, considering the amount of rules there appear to be for stoning people—whether it is for breaking the Sabbath, or adultery. God even commands genocide at one point.
The way that God is described in the Old Testament really would lead one to not have a very high opinion of the Christian God at all, but if you have studied different religions, as well as looked into Zen, you will know that spiritual teachers of the past would often use stories to portray a message. In Zen, they use those kinds of stories, but they also use koans, which are questions, like: "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" which really don't have an answer, and are designed to get you to think.
In Taoism, there is the story of the farmer which goes as so:
This farmer had only one horse, and one day the horse ran away. The neighbours came to console him over his terrible loss and the farmer said, "What makes you think it is so terrible?"
A month later, the horse came home—this time bringing with her two beautiful wild horses. The neighbours became excited at the farmer's good fortune. Such lovely strong horses! The farmer said, "What makes you think this is good fortune?"
The farmer's son was thrown from one of the wild horses and broke his leg. All the neighbours were very distressed. Such bad luck! The farmer said, "What makes you think it is bad?"
A war came, and every able-bodied man was conscripted and sent into battle. Only the farmer's son, because he had a broken leg, remained. The neighbours congratulated the farmer. "What makes you think this is good?" said the farmer.
The above story points something out that most people would never have thought. And that is, that good and evil are relative. For instance, when the farmer's son was thrown off the wild horse, he broke his leg, and the neighbours said it was a bad luck; but that bad luck may have indeed saved his son's life, as he wasn't conscripted because of his broken foot.
I believe the above story shows the folly of the idea of absolute good or evil, and that good and evil is relative. This isn't to say that there are certain things that aren't evil or good, but just shows how the idea of absolute good or evil has its flaws, and this story imparts that message.
There are stories of Jesus Christ that date to well after his death, such as in the non-canonical books of Valentinus, who was born in 100AD and lived until 160AD, who was considered the best known and most popular early Christian gnostic theologian. One of the Gospels that is often attributed to him is the Gospel of Truth, which was written about 140 to 180AD by Valentinian Gnostics.
The Gospel of Truth basically goes as follows:
The text describes a theory of the rise of Error in personified (female) form. The ignorance and yearning to see the Father bred fear, which coalesced into a fog by which Error gained power.
It then describes Jesus as having been sent down by God to remove ignorance. Jesus was a teacher confounding the other scribes and teachers, and asserted they were foolish since they tried to understand the world by analysing the law. But, Error grew angry at this, and nailed Jesus to a tree. It also proceeds to describe how it is knowledge that grants salvation, which constitutes eternal rest, describing ignorance as a nightmare.
Some people believe this story was written at least 140 to 180 years after Jesus Christ died, and you can see how Jesus is being used to impart a spiritual message in the story. The use of these of kinds of stories to impart spiritual messages are quite common, not only in western theological texts (Christian), but also in eastern ones(Buddhism and Hinduism) as well. So, while this story was written  at least 140 after Jesus Christ died, and is not considered canonical by the church, the tales portrayed in this story may have been made up to impart a spiritual meaning, just like the story of the farmer in the Taoism, which may or may not have happened, but still has meaning and it is important to understand the meaning of the story; if you just take it literally, you are missing the point.
One thing that we also know about Jesus Christ in the Bible, is that He would often speak in parables, which also lends credence to theory of spiritual leaders using stories and parables to impart messages.
Back to the Bible and the Old Testament, as I was saying, the God of the Old Testament can be seen as a wrathful, jealous and violently oppressive individual, who not only commands stoning of adulterers, but even genocide, and all in the name of righteousness.
Essentially. what you have is a divine regime, that uses violence and oppression, and even genocide, to push the noble ideology of Godly righteousness, and God's version of nobility, as a kind of divine totalitarianism, if you will. This is pretty much the way the Old Testament continues—for instance, the stories of Moses and the murder of every first born in Egypt—until you get to the New Testament.
In the New Testament, you have Jesus Christ, who presents a completely different ideology than his father. For instance, in John 8:1-9, it talks about the scribes and the Pharisees bringing Jesus an adulterer and they say that the law of Moses demands that she be stoned, to which Jesus replies:
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone at her"
And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
Now, this isn't the only part in which the New Testament and Jesus’ message of love and forgiveness contradicts the violent oppressive nature of the rules presented in the Old Testament. For instance, you have Roman 13:8-10, which states:
8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.”10 Love does no harm to a neighbour; therefore love is the fulfilment of the law.
Galatians 5:7-10 says something similar. More interestingly, as if to drive home the point, there is a particular passage that refers to the law of Moses and then states that the covenant (agreement) of Jesus is better than the covenant of Abel in Hebrews 8:7-13:
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbour, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”
13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Hebrews 12: 18-24 says:
18 For you have not come to the mountain that may be touched and that burned with fire, and to blackness and darkness and tempest, 19 and the sound of a trumpet and the voice of words, so that those who heard it begged that the word should not be spoken to them any more. 20 (For they could not endure what was commanded: “And if so much as a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned[e] or shot with an arrow.” 21 And so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, “I am exceedingly afraid and trembling.”)
22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.
The first passage of Hebrews above basically states that the first of set of rules(covenant) that were made with the fathers of the day who God lead out of the land of Egypt(obvious reference to Moses) was faulty, which is why we need a second one, and now God will be merciful to the unrighteous (in keeping with Jesus's message of love and forgiveness), and remember those sins no more.
In the second passage, it basically states that the people could not endure what had been commanded with rules such as "And if so much as a beast touches the mountain it shall be stoned," and that the covenant of Jesus (love and forgiveness) is better than the covenant of Abel (which are the original rules starting from the beginning with stoning and the genocide).
You would think that it would be a much shorter, and less confusing story, if it just began with the love and forgiveness, and the statement that all laws commanded by God can be summed up in love thy neighbour as yourself. Why would an omnipotent God need a second covenant? Shouldn't He have known what the correct covenant would have been in the first place since He's omnipotent and knows everything?
Unless the purpose of the story is to convey a message, as biblical scholars and spiritual scholars did using stories.
In essence, the Bible can be summed up as: in the beginning, God used authoritarianism with violence, genocide, murder etc., all in the name of divine nobility, to keep people righteous; then Jesus comes along later and contradicts his father by preaching love and forgiveness and pacifism as the righteous path, and God basically says that love and forgiveness (also tolerance) is a much better system than using authoritarianism, violence, intolerance and genocide in the name of righteousness.
That one is an important lesson. For instance, if we come back to examining the regimes of Hitler, Stalin and, I believe, most of the communist regimes, you can see they all gave up on tolerance and then attempted genocide in the name of their righteous ideologies. In fact, in the Mein Kampf excerpt above, it specifically states that initially, Hitler did not attack the Jews because of his tolerance, but then later on changed because of his belief in the common justice.
Also, while democratic countries that follow the beliefs of freedom of speech, freedom of belief, and equal rights—which can in essence be boiled down to treating people as you would like to be treated—generally don't have problems with attempted genocide, at times, when states have moved away from that we have had some of the largest atrocities committed.
In conclusion, while some people out there may have beliefs that the world may be better off without religious people, non-believers, or people of particular races or creeds, and may have noble intentions for believing so, so have some of the largest mass murderers history has ever known. Their noble intentions have provided the justification to commit terrible acts of mass murder. So, if you remember one thing from this article, remember that noble intentions can lead to the cruelest of crimes.

Sunday, March 17, 2013

Religion vs Atheism (The new two party system)

There has been a growing trend in recent times that I have noticed in a kind of two party system ideology forming between religion and atheism in these religion vs atheism arguments and debates. In one of my previous articles I pointed to how the two party system is used with the republicans and democrats where republicans supporters blame democrats for the countries problems while democrats blame republicans but supporters of both sides often don't see that the difference between the two parties in terms of policy are just an illusion and both their agendas are being pushed by the corporations who sponsor them (with a few minor exceptions such as Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and Rand Paul whose filibuster of John Brennan's nomination was golden).

This same agenda though is now starting to trend into a religion vs atheism argument where there are numerous atheists who believe that all of the world problems are due to religion and then on the other side of the argument you generally have the Christian right some of who are pushing for a Christian nation because of the belief that the reason for the countries problems are due to them being too secular.

The strange thing is that both of these parties are so vague and uninformed about what they think is that neither is right and often when questioned about their beliefs they have very few facts to back up what they say and generally resort to generalisations to back up their beliefs without having investigated the issues properly from an unemotional and logical vantage point.

Both of these parties often while their hearts may be in the right place as they are generally worried about the state of the world and do take an active interest in politics they don't realise that most of the world problems are often caused by a lack of education in the terms of the average citizen of what counts such as a basic knowledge of economics, history and politics in general so they can't tell when their being conned and because of the policies that are being written every day which are being written often to push some kind of corporate agenda which is about making money often at the expense of certain people and/or countries.

Now often on the Atheist's side they believe that religion is the cause of the world problems and will often point to things like the Crusades when if they had a basic knowledge of history that was more in depth than things they have heard they would know that the Crusades were are response to Muslim aggression as the people often forget that the Middle East was once part of the Roman empire and when the Roman empire converted to Christianity officially in 27th of February 380 AD and they became Christian nations and the fact that it consists on the majority of Muslim nations today is a testament to that fact but people also often forget that the Protestants had nothing to do with the crusades and also that the Orthodox were victims of the crusades especially the 4th crusades as the soldiers sent to combat the Muslims also killed Orthodox Christians as well so blaming Orthodox Christians is like blaming Hitler on the Jews.

In fact the Orthodox Church has never sanctioned any wars as though the Byzantine empire fought wars these wars were not supported by the Orthodox Church.

Another common argument that Atheists often refer to the rape of small children that is particularly prevalent in the Catholic church and though obviously I think that it's obviously wrong I don't see how that epidemic has anything to do with Christianity itself as if the rape of small children was prevalent in Christian nations then I suppose one could make that comment but then one would have to explain why isn't it a problem in the Orthodox and Protestant churches.

But I think as history shows that the Catholic Church itself as an organisation has shown itself to have often had problems with corruption and despotism for instance how the Catholic Church carried out the massacre of the Cathars in the early 13th century because they choose to believe in God in a different way and even when St Bernard was sent to convert them before the massacre even he commented on how pious and devout they were but alas because they would not confirm to the church's view of theology they were considered heretics and murdered so the Catholic Church can be considered at least historically as an example of a corrupt theofascist organisation that used their power to subjugate those didn't believe in their authority as it represented a threat to the states they ruled.

But the above doesn't have anything to do with Orthodox Christians or Protestants or Lutherans and really has nothing to do with your average Catholic either so blaming Christians and even Catholics as a result of a religious organisation that they have no control over is unreasonable and quite silly.

Generalising and blaming Christians about the problems of the Catholic church is like blaming atheists on the atrocities carried out by Stalin and Mao's regimes (the two largest mass murderers history has ever known) as atheists in today's world have no control over what these militant anti-theistic regimes did and neither does your average Christian have any control over any religious organisation. What happened to innocent until proven guilty and judging people on the bases of their deeds not their race, religion or creed as long their religious beliefs or atheistic beliefs do not impose on others then people can believe what they want.

Now one of the other arguments that is often used often used by Atheists is that Christianity pushes hatred of Homosexual as evidenced by Christians who push hatred towards homosexuals and are against same-sex marriage well to get technical the bible doesn't actually push hatred towards homosexual as the word that is often translated to homosexual or pervert according to the context is the word "arsenokoites" and that word doesn't actually mean homosexual in fact scholars don't know what the word means because it was never used in literature before the bible so we can't refer to prior literature for an explanation but also the bible itself never explains what St Paul meant by the word so the closest thing to an explanation that we have is from Philo a Jewish philosopher and a contemporary of St Paul who believed it to have referred to shrine prostitution which was the use of small children to function as prostitutes for particular organisations and sex groups. Now I have had many debates about Christians with this and often when presented with this fact they resort to God will punish you or try to say that because it refers to male on male sex that it means homosexual but they are mistaken and factually incorrect.

Now another argument that is often used is the middle east with it's supposed Sunni-Shiite Problems that I covered in a previous article (click here to see the previous article) but to summarise what's going on with the Middle East is not really a Sunni-Shiite problem, it is being caused by Saudi Arabia and it's spread of Wahhabism which is a form of Islam that preaches hatred towards all non-Wahhabi Muslims (Sunni's and Shiites included) and the reason that nothing is done about that is because of the US oil companies who have ties with the Saudi Arabian government basically allow the Saudi's to fund Wahhabism because of their lucrative oil deals that they have with Saudi companies that they don't want to ruin so it's not really a problem of religion, it is a problem of theofascism that is being ignored by the US and UK governments because they don't want to ruin their deals with Saudi Arabia.

Now there are numerous others but I have covered those in previous articles and this article isn't supposed to be about debunking the arguments.

Now over to the theists side. Now one of the arguments that you often hear from the Christian Right, Republicans or Christian Fundamentalists is that they believe that the problem with the US is that they have gone away from being a Christian nation and that they wouldn't want an atheist in office because their values are somehow lacking but also because there would be a problem with accountability because if someone believes in God they are accountable to God where as an atheist isn't accountable to anyone.

Now the above argument seems to be based on nothing but vapour as President George W Bush was supposedly a Christian and the belief in God was supposed to make him accountable but strangely when a minority in the media (and I mean a scarce minority) asked for the evidence that Iraq had nuclear weapons that prompted the Iraq War in 2003 that he was saying they had, he said that he couldn't show the evidence because "the terrorists would win" and it's now been shown that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction and not only that if they actually had had them why didn't they use them.

I mean I thought that the belief in God was supposed to make someone accountable and if the belief that your going to burn in hell for murdering 660,000 Iraqi’s couldn't scare Bush into being accountable then I don't know what could and I would either say he takes his religion as a joke, is an unwitting pawn who believes he is doing God's work an wasn't aware of why the war was really being fought or far more likely is just more concerned with the interests of the American oil companies and Saudi interests to care about being accountable to the average American citizen.

Now as for the argument that God hates America cause it's support for homosexuals is a hypocritical notion especially from people who say that they believe in a loving God and believe in freedom and equality but want to discriminate against a homosexual right to marriage because they themselves believe it's wrong. America was founded on the belief that all human beings are equal and are entitled to liberty and to have freedom of belief, freedom of speech, freedom from want and freedom from fear and take away a homosexuals right to get married by the same people who say they love the USA clearly don't know what the founding fathers of the USA were all about.

Now to drive home the original point which was illusion that is the religion vs atheism debates. Now unfortunately in order to drive home this point I am going to need to criticise an individual who has passed away which is not normally something that I would do as I prefer to stick to current news and the problem with particular ideologies but it has to be done to illustrate a point.

Now well known atheist writer Christopher Hitchens was a major supporter of the Iraq War and also a well known critic of religion and though historically he had been known as an anti-stalinist socialist who opposed the Vietnam war (and rightly so as we now know that it was started by a lie which was the second Gulf of Tonkin incident) but then did the unthinkable by switching over to the neo-con side by supporting the war on Iraq like Bush was.

And like Bush he promoted the lie that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but not only that made numerous statements such as Bush's war on Iraq would undercut the empire of Saudi Arabia which was either the worst reporting ever as the connection between the Bush family and the House of Saud is well known and if Bush had been interested in doing that he would have put an embargo on Saudi Arabia to stop them from funding terrorist groups and to force them to stop propagating Wahhabism but he did nothing of the sort so as I said it was either incredible misinformation on Hitchen's part or an outright lie and I assume the latter.

Now not only did the war on Iraq not undercut the empire of Saudi Arabia but it gave the oil companies an excuse to raise oil prices which mean that more money was being flooded into Saudi Arabia which meant a lot more money for Saudi Arabia to propagate their hate-filled Wahhabi beliefs and more money to fund terrorists.

Now here you have a prime example of how the illusion of how the two party system works.  Hitchen's was an atheist and considered as one of the four horsemen of the new atheist's who was apparently outraged with religion and fervently anti-religious for moral reasons but the mass murder of 660,000 Iraqi's for a lie is ok according to him, something he propagated but also so is making up your own lies about the Iraq war (so much for accountability). Bush on the other is supposed to be a Christian and once stated that he was waging the war on Saddam for God but in the end you had two people from supposedly opposed factions promoting the same lie and agenda.

Now too elaborate on this point you have the another of the new atheists whose name is Sam Harris who promotes that only certain people should be moral authorities (which I don't know whether to classify as Authoritarianism or Fascism) supposedly in the name of helping the world and then you also have the Christian Right who want the fusion of state and church and considered themselves the authorities on earth because of their connection to God and tell people how to think and interpret God's message and the bible because people are somehow to stupid to interpret or read it themselves and need to be directed.

Now in the end you have two different opposed sides offering the same type of ideology but in two different flavours giving you the choice of either secular authoritarianism or religious authoritarianism and I question why we need either. So far in mankind's history authoritarianism has never worked out well and can be contributed to some of the greatest atrocities in human history particularly in the early to late 20th century.

This new religion vs atheism debates seem to be an attempt to shift our culture away from free thought and often either side doesn't seem to really address any of the problems that are being caused in the world in a legitimate and factual manner just like the democrats and republicans often as a whole (apart from a few minor exceptions) never seem to do either and they just blame each other for the problems but in the end end up pushing the same agenda and then you have the illusion that is the two party system where each party blames the other publicly but in the end the corporate agenda just keeps chugging along.

Friday, March 15, 2013

Wahhibism and the problems that it causes in the Middle East

Now a lot of people don't really know what is really going on in the Middle East. If you believe what the mass media tell you, you believe that the Islamic Middle East has an apparent hatred of America because they hate America's freedom and liberty but there is a lot more going on in the Middle East than people know.

Now the truth of the matter is that a lot of people (like a particular individual who also happens to believe that only a certain groups of people should be moral authorities, hmm secular authoritarianism  anyone) either because of ignorance or for the purposes of deception promote that the problem with the middle east is because of the Sunni and Shia conflict or that's it's because of Islam.

The above is a gross simplification of what is really going on but is also incorrect(well mostly). What a lot of western spin-doctors who discuss the topic of the middle east often leave out talk of Wahhabism and the reality that it is a Wahhabi vs everyone else conflict and conveniently so because it would point people in the right direction as to what is really going on.

Now for those of you who don't know what Wahhabism is well it is a ultra conservative branch of Sunni Islam and is the official Sunni sect in Saudi Arabia who consider themselves strict fundamentalists in that they believe in Holy Quran exactly as it was meant to be believed and sometimes call themselves monotheists(and call Shiites polytheists). Now Wahhabism was founded in the 18th Century by a Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab.

Now while the Wahhabi's are considered a branch of Sunnism what seperates them from the Sunnis is their historical obsession for killing anyone that doesn't conform to their interpretation of Islam including Shiites, Sufis, and the majority of Sunnis and any other muslims that don't conform.

Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab(seen above) The theologian who created Wahhabism
Now you might ask, what does this have to do with Saudi Arabia, well the history of Wahhibism and Saudi Arabia are intertwined because of the political agreement that was made in 1744 between Muhammad Ibn Adul-Wahhab and the house of Muhammad Ibn Saud and it was through through this political alliance that Wahabbism gained unchallenged precedence through Saudi Arabia due to the financial backing and political power of the House of Saud but it also provided the House of Saud with a kind of legitimacy because they had the backing of a religious following.

King Ibn Saud

Now in 1801, The Saudi-Wahhabi warriors sacked the Shiite city of Karbala and killed over 4000 people in the process and after various terrorist acts and crimes they aroused the anger of many muslims around the world and in 1818 the official ruler of the Arabian Peninsula, Caliph Mahmud II ordered an egyptian force punish the Saudi-Wahhabi clan which they did and the Wahabbi leader at the time a Imam Abdul and two of his followers were publicly executed in Istanbul and the rest of the leadership of the clan where held under arrest in Cairo.

Now where going to come back to the present time for a second before we move onto the next point because now you know about the historical connection between Wahhabism and Saudi Arabia. Now Wahhabism to this day is still alive and well and being pushed in Saudi Arabia and now that you know about the extreme intolerance that the Wahhabi's have with everyone who doesn't agree with the them this next part will make more sense.

Now in 2006, The Center of Religious Freedom of Freedom House published a report named the Saudi Arabia's Curriculum of Intolerance (report can be downloaded or viewed here),now in the report which analysed a set of 12 current Saudi Ministry of Education textbooks and the report showed the following things about these textbooks as summarised on the Freedom House website:

  • They condemn and denigrate the majority or Sunni Muslims who do not follow the Wahhabi understanding of Islam and call them deviants and descendants of polytheists; 
  • Condemn and denigrate Shiite and Sufi Muslims' beliefs and practices as heretical and call them "polytheists;"
  • Command Muslims to "hate" Christians, Jews, "polytheists" and other "unbelievers", including non-Wahhabi muslims, incongruously, not to treat them "unjustly";
  • Teach the infamous forgeries, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, as historical fact;
  • Teach other conspiracy theories accusing Freemasons, Lions Clubs and Rotary Clubs of plotting to undermine Muslims;
  • Teach that "Jews and the Christians are enemies of the [Muslim] believers" and that "the clash" between the two realms is perpetual;
  • Instruct students not to "greet," "befriend," "imitate," "show loyalty to," "be courteous to," or "respect" non-believers;
  • Assert that the spread of Islam through jihad is a "religious duty;"
  • Instruct that "fighting between Muslims and Jews" will continue until Judgment Day, and that the Muslims are promised victory over the Jews in the end;
  • Include a map of the Middle East that labels Israel within its pre-1967 borders as "Palestine: occupied 1948."
Now I think the above gives you a much greater insight into Wahhabism, but not only that but shows that the education that the Wahhabi's in Saudi Arabia as well as the Wahhabi's around the world receive preaches and indoctrinates their young with intolerance and hate towards everyone who is not a Wahhabi but also preaches that is it the responsibility of Wahhabi's to spread Islam through Jihad.

Now is it any wonder that 15 out of the 19 hijackers from 9-11 were from Saudi Arabia when this is what their public education system teaches but interestingly enough Saudi Arabia was never attacked after 9-11 when there was an obvious link to Saudi Arabia but instead the US attacked Iraq which was a country that had no link to Al-Qaida and it has been determined that the chemical weapons that were in production were destroyed in 1991. (see report by US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report that was published in 2008).

But not to digress as this gives you an understanding into Wahhabism now back to where the story was in the past. Now in 1843 a Wahhabi Imam Faisal Turki al-Saud escaped captivity in Cairo and petitioned the political aid from the British political resident in 1848. The British sent a Colonel Lewis Pelly in 1865 to establish an official treaty with the House of Saud.

Now this is written about in Robert Lacey's book "The Kingdom: Arabia & The House of Sa'ud" and of particular mention is the section where Col Pelly and Imam are discussing Wahhabi strategy and Imam says that the major difference in the Wahhabi strategy in contrast to the other forms of Islam is that when it comes to religious wars "we kill everybody"

Now the above strategy can still be seen in use today clearly by how the Wahhabi's still spread a public message of hate and not just against non-muslims but against everyone that isn't a Wahhabi. Now another not often known fact is that a large majority of funding for terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and Taliban and Hamas come from Saudi Arabia(see guardian article and report) which isn't surprising considering that 15 out of the 19 hijackers from 9-11 were from Saudi Arabia which the following sections from the above report will show:

“While the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) takes seriously the threat of terrorism
within Saudi Arabia, it has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority. . . . [D]onors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide."

"Despite this presence, however, more needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qa'ida, the Taliban, LeT, and other terrorist groups, including Hamas, which probably raise millions of dollars annually from Saudi sources, often during Hajj and Ramadan. In contrast to its increasingly aggressive efforts to disrupt al-Qa'ida's access to funding from Saudi sources, Riyadh has taken only limited action to disrupt fundraising for the UN 1267-listed Taliban and LeT-groups that are also aligned with al-Qa'ida and focused on undermining stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Now the above report showed that major terrorist groups are being funded by donors in Saudi Arabia but as if that isn't bad enough Saudi Arabia has spent $87 billion in propagating their hate filled ideologies around the world in the last two decades and the volume of financing is believed to have increased in recent times due to the oil prices skyrocketing which is thanks to the Iraq war so you can thank Bush for that one as well as a certain individual who made the statement that Bush's war on Iraq would undercut Saudi Arabia which it didn't cause it provided more money for Saudi Arabia to fund terrorists and to spread their violent hate filled brand of religion around the world.

So it's to easy how Saudi Arabian Wahhabism is not only causing vast problems in the Middle East by funding a large majority of Sunni terrorist groups including Al'Qaida but the countries religion preaches hatred of all non-wahhabi muslims and whose belief system makes it a breeding ground for terrorists and is spreading their terrorist style religion which preaches to push Islam by Jihad all around the world.

Now people who often point to the Middle East and say that there is a Sunna-Shia problem are sadly mistaken because Shias are the minority in the muslim world as Shias comprise of only 10-15% of the world's muslims and while radical clerics in Iran have been responsible for terrible abused in power they do not regard non-shiite muslims as non-believers who must be purged (like Wahhabi's do) and secondly Shias don't seem to exhibit the theofascist tendencies that Wahhabi's seem to exhibit.

Now I just want to add something here. This article is not an attack on all Saudi Arabians as not all those that identify themselves as Wahabbis (in actual fact most Wahhabi's don't even like the term) as there are those Wahhabi's that do not subscribe to the hate-filled ideologies that are being peddled by the religious sheiks and the ulamas (religious legal scholars) for instance King Fahd (King of Saudi Arabia from 1982 to 2005)  was well know to have progressive ideas but the grand seizure of the mosque in 1979 by a Juhayman al-Otaybi (and his accomplices) forced Saudi Arabia to move backwards to religious extremism in order to appease the Wahhabi extremists (well at least that's what King Fahd did when he became king) and neither do I believe his successor King Al Saud is involved in pushing the hate filled ideology but the religious sheiks and ulamas and certain members of the royal family and rich Saudi's who provide the ulama and sheiks with the funding to building madrassas and spread their hate-filled ideologies around the world are the real perpetrators of spreading hate and promoting jihad.

Now in conclusion you can safely see that a vast majority of the problems in the Middle East are caused by Saudi Arabia and it's spread of Wahhabism just like the spread of any other hate filled ideology or religion can cause problems and it is not only a threat to the Middle east but also the entire world.

Further reading

If you're anything like me and you wanna find out more you about the issue and become better educated here are some sources that you can check out for yourself:

Forbidden Truth: U.S.-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy and the Failed Hunt for Bin Laden (Nation Books)

Inside the Kingdom: Kings, Clerics, Modernists, Terrorists, and the Struggle for Saudi Arabia

The Kingdom: Arabia & The House of Sa'ud by Robert Lacey

Saudi Arabia's Curriculum of Intolerance by The Religious Freedom of Freedom House

Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism and the Spread of Sunni Theofascism

Thursday, February 14, 2013

Myth 3: Hitler's regime was based on Roman Catholicism and this is why he persecuted the Jews and carried out the atrocities in Germany.

Now this one is an interesting one particular for myself being though I obviously find what Hitler did abhorrent (just like how I find Stalin and Mao regime's) I have been studying World War 2 history for a while now and I new this one was false because of what I new of Hitler's regime and his positive Christianity as well as his association with the Thule society (even though he never attended it he allowed it to exist) and the Aryan mysticism where the idea of the superior man came from.

Now I am going to present the evidence as to why this is false.

1. Now most people that I have come across who push this often don't know what Positive Christianity is and how it differs from Catholicism and main stream forms of Christianity and here are just some of the differences:

  • It rejects the Jewish written parts of the bible including the whole old testament
  • Claimed Jesus had an Aryan(Nordic) heritage, that Jesus was non-Jewish and that Jesus fought against the Jews.
  • And had a political objective of national unity, to overcome confessional differences, to eliminate Catholicism and to unite Protestantism into a single unitary Christian national socialist church
  • And promoted racial purity
So from the above it's very easy to see that positive Christianity is very different from Catholicism as they present entirely different views of Jesus and I would say ideologically opposed versions of Jesus with one promoting Jesus as a fighter of the Jews and another promoting that Jesus was a Jew who was a pacifist. 

So when people read Mein Kampf and Hitler talks about Christianity he is talking about Positive Christianity.

The following quotation should also help elaborate on the views of Positive Christianity which comes from the National Socialist German Workers' Party aka Nazi Party (abbreviated to NSDAP from how the National Socialist German Worker's Party would be written in german as Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei):

NSDAP Party Program. February 24, 1920, Point 24: "We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: The good of the state before the good of the individual."

The above is quoted in Robert Michael and Philip Rosen (2007). Dictionary of Antisemitism from the Earliest Times to the Present Lanham: Scarecrow Press and illustrates the vast difference in positive Christianity to Catholicism (or any other main stream form of Christianity that I can think off).

2. People often forget about Eugenics and/or Social Darwinist policies present in Hitler's regime and the policies of the National Socialist German as can be seen by the following Nazi poster from around 1938:

Now what the following poster translates to is "60,000 Reichsmark is what this person suffering from a hereditary disease costs the People's community during his lifetime. Comrade, that is your money too. Read '[A] New People'" 

The above poster came from the monthly magazine of the Bureau for Race Politics of the NSDAP and can also be evidenced in the last sentence of NSDAP Party Program Point 24 which is: "The good of the state before the good of the individual." 

For those of you who don't know what I mean when I refer to social darwinism it is the idea of "survival of the fittest" applied to society and government policies and that is that by removing the weaker elements of a society the state will become stronger for it.

In Hitler's case he believed that the German nation had become weak due to the corruption of degenerate elements into it's blood stream and he believed that Germany could become strong again if the state applied the principles of racial hygiene and eugenics to society. 

And to do this he applied compulsory sterilization policies now for those of you who don't know what sterilization is it any medical technique that is designed to stop someone from being able to reproduce (basically like neutering your dog) and one of the first acts he passed after achieving total control of the German state was the Law for the Prevention of Hereditary Diseased Offspring (Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses) in July 1933.

Now under the above law, all doctors in Germany were required to report all patients of theirs that were either mentally ill (including schizophrenia and depression), mentally retarded, blind, epileptic, deaf and physically deformed and a steep financial penalty was imposed on doctors who did not do so. Even people who suffered from Huntingson's Disease or alcoholism could also be sterilized.

The above would involve the individuals case being presented to courts of Nazi officials and public health officers and public health officers who would review their medical records, take testimonies from friends and colleagues and then decide whether or not the sterilization would be performed on the individual and even allowed the use of force to enforce the sterilization and by the end of World War 2 over 400,000 people had been sterilized and most within the first four years of the policies enactment and does not include the 70,000 people who were institutionalized or suffered from birth defects who were killed in the euthanasia program.

Now all the above evidence indicates that eugenics was a very big part of the Nazi ideology.

3. And the last point but probably the most important one in exposing this particular myth is that according to a US Office of Strategic Services Report, Hitler had a master plan to destroy the influences of the Christian Church within the Reich even before his rise to power.

In the report titled "The Nazi Master Plan" (which can be downloaded here) it is stated that the destruction of the church was a goal right from the very beginning but that it was inexpedient to express this idea publicly. And according to Alan Bullock in his book "Hitler a study in tyranny" he believed that it was Hitler's intention to wait until the war was over to destroy the influence of Christianity.

Now when one puts all this information together(and there is much more which i have left out) it is very easy to see how the idea that Hitler persecuted the Jews because of his supposed Catholic christian views is wrong when he not only had different views from Catholicism but he also had a master plan to get rid of Catholicism and the Christian influence on the Reich.

This one is probably one of the strangest myths of all because all it really would take would be about 10 seconds of research such as possibly typing in "Nazi religious views" or "Nazi policies" into Google to determine that Hitler's beliefs were as evidenced by his policies were in stark contrast to Catholicism but strangely this myth is still often accepted as fact.


Robert Michael and Philip Rosen (2007). Dictionary of Antisemitism from the Earliest Times to the Present Lanham: Scarecrow Press

Steigmann-Gall, Richard (2003). The Holy Reich

Alan Bullock (1962). Hitler a study in tyranny

Bonney, Richard. "The Nazi Master Plan, Annex 4: The Persecution of the Christian Churches". Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion

Sharkey, Joe (13 January 2002). "Word for Word/The Case Against the Nazis; How Hitler's Forces Planned To Destroy German Christianity". The New York Times. Retrieved 7th of June 2011

Racial hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988),

Gisela Bock, "Nazi sterilization and reproductive policies" in Dieter Kuntz, ed.,

Deadly medicine: creating the master race (Washington, D.C.: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2004).

Ian Kershaw. Hitler: A Profile in Power, Chapter VI, first section (London, 1991, rev. 2001)

Sunday, February 10, 2013

The two party system and the problem with it

In the USA you have what is often referred to as the two party system(there are others but the two are the major ones) which consists of the republicans and the democrats and with the republicans being considered the political right (conservatives) and the democrats being considered the political left (liberals) and in Australia we have the Labor party (political left) and the Liberal party (political right).

Now it often seems to me as evidenced as not only by certain Youtube celebrities like WillBillForAmerica (A staunch republican) but by the media and the politicians in general that most people who are Republicans believe that the Democrats are at fault for the countries problem and Democrats tend to believe that the Republicans are the cause of the problems

You will see this in the media how when the Republicans are in office the Democrats will criticise almost everything they do and vice-versa and you can pretty much see it in the Australian political scene as well as when Labor is in office the Liberal opposition will literally just criticise absolutely everything that the Labor government does often just for the sake of it and you also see that when Labor is in opposition.

Now traditionally I have always been a person who you could say leans towards the political left but politics was not really my interest due to the vacuous nonsense that seems to dribble from the media and the politicians mouths until the implementation of the Patriot Act during George W Bush's presidency when I saw several atrocities such as the "Don't tase me bro" incident and a bunch of protesters being arrested for protesting the Iraq war that you would never expect from a country that gave birth to the idea of free speech and I was so morally outraged that I became a staunch Democrats advocate as I believed they would solve the problem and developed a hatred towards the Republican Party and especially George W Bush.

So when I saw Barrack Obama running for president as well as Hilary Clinton I was excited by the prospect of finally having a president in the office who would do some good in America and sure enough Obama became the president and since his slogan had been about making change I was excited to see what he would do.

Sure enough I have seen almost no changes for the better and even worse he has extended three key provisions of the Patriot Act. Now for those of you who don't know why I am so against it is because it essentially is Fascism.  Before the Patriot Act in America if the police or government legally wanted to search your home they needed probable cause and if you weren't a criminal they probably wouldn't have any but now if your even suspected of being a terrorist and they can raid your home and spy on you legally.

Now you might say what's the problem with this? I mean it's for the US citizens protection against terrorists. Well the problem isn't that it can be used to help against terrorists the problem is that it's quite open to abuse as who decides what is a terrorist and that's the problem with it.

Now on Bill Maher's show Bill addressed Dinesh D'Souza about his Anti-Obama documentary and in the video below D'Souza makes the comment that the Bush's administration highest deficit was 500 billion dollars and Obama's lowest deficit was 1 trillion dollars to which Maher responds "because he's (referring to Obama) paying for Bush's **ck ups (referring to the Iraq war).

And this is the typical back and forth banter that you generally see in the politics. When the Republican's get into office and they stuff thing ups like wage wars for no reason and then people vote in the Democrats and when the Democrats then stuff things up they vote back in the Republicans and in the end you have this back forth system which is quite brilliant in it's setup when you think about it.

Essentially the two party system gives the US government and the corporations who run them the ability to do whatever they want because irregardless of what happens the governments agenda continues forward and whichever party is in office becomes the scapegoat for whatever is wrong and then people vote the other party in thinking that it will fix the problem and usually it never does and this goes on and on and on.