The Top Ten Dumbest Religions

10 Quakerism
While it is commonly associated with being another Christian spin-off religion, many people who identify as Quakers may also answer to the category of atheist or agnostic, or may also belong to some other religion. The reason this "religion" is much less stupid than both orthodox and protestant Christianity is because they have done away with any established church hierarchy and emphasized the personal relationship with "god." Whatever it may be that you experience that is 'god', it is ok with them.

You could potentially be identified as a Muslim, and consider yourself a Quaker if you kept your experiences and beliefs to yourself. I think we can quickly see that without a) a power structure in place to get involved in the dealings of money and authority, and b) a desire to assert your "one right way" upon other people, that such a religion would be far less destructive than most others.

They also do not regard the bible as the final truth and wisdom of god, but as maybe a small part of something greater.

The easiest thing to make fun of them about is plainness in speech and dress, etc. They think that plainness in dress is avoiding vanity which is going to, I don't know, take you off the godly path? They are onto something good there, and that is that we don't need to keep up with all the latest fashions, that consumer culture creates incredible waste, that we can make our own garments and wear the ones we have longer, and we can still look just fine doing it.
Of course, it can become a dogma like anything else, and I'm sure there are groups of Quakers who would judge outsiders only by the 'vanity' of their clothing.

All in all, I am not going to lose any sleep at night wondering if Quakers are trying to kill me for speaking against their religion. Now if they could just drop the label, save time by not worrying about the god concept at all, integrate with modernism and participate in changing our society towards their counter-consumer values, I would love them.



9 Jainism
Making fun of Jainism is a lot like making fun of retards - retards are perfectly nice, harmless, friendly, and can even do really kind nice things, but at the same time they make genuinely funny retarded faces and noises. It's not that you feel anything negative towards them at all, it’s just that they are retarded and it makes you laugh sometimes.

Jains value non-violence and self-responsibility in one's actions topmost, don’t believe in any omniscient being or creator, and they have a kickass logo. Not only are they commonly vegan, some Jains wear masks throughout their lives to kill less air-born germs and organisms they breathe in. They also sometimes limit their unnecessary steps on the earth or sleep only laying on their side so the least amount of their body's surface area contacts the ground which may kill microorganisms there. All of these exercises are practiced because of their idea that through maximum detachment and compassion you can come to fully understand the nature of your soul and be free from the cycle of rebirth into a world of misery.

In Jain belief, the universe was never created and will never cease to exist, and this is absolutely in line with the most modern of cosmological data and theories.

Clearly, if we woke up tomorrow with the whole word converted to Janism, much of our problems would be solved. A lot of their ideas have clear benefits for all of us to introduce into our lives, and their concept of karma, along with the Hindus' and the Buddhists', is at its heart a rephrasing of the golden rule that nearly all religious traditions have in some form.
What the Jains don't realize is that dogmatically living like this is a damned waste of time. I didn't go into the details here about how they have mountains of literature written through the centuries on philosophies of rebirth, the soul, discovering one's soul, and the 'science' of breaking all of known time into various ages that all have certain characteristics... (which seems completely trivial if the universe has no beginning or end?)

What about if instead of deeply studying these 6,000+ year old Indian terms and philosophies and arbitrary systematization of time and the futility of attaining MOKSHA, Jains instead focused their compassion for life on fighting mistreatment of animals, feeding Somali children, and stopping all war? That would be all too practical.

Don't get me wrong, a Jain is a friend of mine, I can tell you that much. But I would question that friend on why he spends a great deal of his life chasing the elusive "soul" and following irrelevant writings, rather than just focusing on compassion for life as a good value to have for sustaining life. That concept does not have to be read from any holy book to understand its truth.


8 Buddhism
So every time I meet someone new who learns about my religious-abolitionist beliefs, one of the first things fired back my way is, "WELL WHAT ABOUT BUDDHISM?? IT IS 100% GOOD, YOU CAN'T TALK SHIT ABOUT IT." All of the shit I may have to talk about Buddhism comes down to this: Look, no educated person is calling into question the real physical and mental benefits of meditation, and I don't question the fact that very interesting experiences and states of consciousness can be attained through various meditation practices, many of which science cannot currently explain. I also have great respect for people like Buddhists who greatly value self-responsibility in their actions and who try to live consciously... these aspects of the tenets of Buddhism are great. Absolutely do I wish that the whole world was Buddhist over its current given state, of course. In fact, it may be better off than if the world was all dogmatic atheists because being an atheist doesn't guarantee a person is a conscientious decision-maker.

So what is the problem with Buddhism? To claim that you: possess the highest knowledge in the world regarding things that nobody can know such as philosophies of reincarnation; that you have books that perfectly outline rules to best attain self-realization; or that you know of a book that contains the true answer to the purpose of our lives, is to live non-scientifically and to limit one's thinking. Why can't we take the ideas of responsibility, accountability, and understanding one's place in life through deep personal reflection from Buddhism, and leave the 227 rules of the rule book for monks behind?


7. Baha'i faith
All gods are actually the same god. All religions are actually the same one. All of mankind will one day realize this and one day be as all-understanding as those of the enlightened Baha'i faith. Since this one unitary god is unknowable and incomprehensible, we comprehend god through his/her/its manifestations on earth, including but not limited to: Muhammad, Jesus, and Buddha. What unmitigated bullshit.

Anyone who has taken five minutes to crack open the religious scripture of a faith outside of one's own will quickly realize nearly all faiths are incompatible with each other. If we assume the Baha'i premise that all religions are the same thing, which means that all of the differences that we observe in different faiths must necessarily be incorrect. Unfortunately, if we pull these components of claims of absolute correctness from various religions, their whole feeble framework utterly crumbles. So if all religions are the same, that means all religions as we know of them now, are wrong. If all religions are wrong, doesn't that remove religion and god entirely?

The remaining of their main tenets is to unite all of humanity. I know what you are thinking, "Come on man, are you seriously going to talk shit about someone for wanting to unite humanity?" YES. It's a noble cause, but it is horribly self-contradictory. Suppose as a Christian I just wanted to go on a mission to unite all of humanity —by making them convert to Christianity. Or a Muslim who wants nothing more than world peace and to unite humanity —by means of converting the world to Islam. Well the Baha'i faith is one step worse than these two examples, because at least the Christians and Muslims could actually achieve the goal of uniting humanity if they did actually convert everyone, whereas the Baha'i ideals are self-defeating. In granting all religions equal respect as all being valid but the same, you only nurture an environment of free religious tolerance, encouraging people to push whatever ridiculous beliefs about the nature of the divine that they wish into the public sphere. "atheist-moderates" are guilty of the same thing, insisting that while they believe there is no god, the theist has his right to believe and practice whatever he wants, turning the other cheek to schools which begin removing evolution and other sensitive subjects from their curriculums out of "respect."

In granting all religious beliefs a degree of validity, the Baha'i adherent is actually ensuring that his goal of global unity is never met. Peace is not possible so long as religious belief exists.


6. Sikhism
Let's start with what is cool... their god is really a monistic concept of god being everything and more all at once, non-gendered, incomprehensible by humans. If you are going to call something 'god', this is just about the only permissible concept you could do so with. You might as well be an atheist who just refers to the universe and the general flow of nature as "god", even sarcastically. The original teacher of the philosophy was purported to have taught, "There is no Hindu, there is no Muslim", and probably, "there is no Sikhism," (but sikh just means something like 'student'). Sounds great so far! Now let’s pile on unnecessary complications and stupidity to make living life harder: like Hindus, they hold tight to the unfounded idea of reincarnation. Next, the founder insisted that as a student of knowledge, the only knowledge that was worth gaining was what you could learn through your guru or teacher, which of course was the founder himself to begin with. Freedom from the human condition can only be attained by devout devotion to god, and since god is intangible, salvation is only attained through your gurus, which of course have only been MEN in the disciplic line of gurus thus far. To be fair, there were some renowned Sikhs that fought for equality of women, opposed sati (bride-burning), and stood up to defend other groups like Hindus; at the same time there have been many militant Sikh groups. But the Bottom line is: why, as a "student" in a quest for the most knowledge, would you invite upon yourself the limitation of only learning your knowledge from one outlet. Why, also, create a new distinction for yourself as belonging to a religious group, which can only serve to create confrontation in disagreement?

5. Hinduism
Create a new religion in your head based on the following: It is not really a religion, and you can't exactly call it a way of life because there is no one way that specifically dictates how to be; there is a god or goddess for every day of the week, every year, every emotion, every color, and every geographic region; there is a god or goddess associated with every food or plant item and one for every working occupation; not only are there gods and goddesses for every world and overworld and underworld, there is a whole volume of texts that predate Christianity and perhaps Judaism by thousands of years systematizing and further systematizing our universe into abstract ages and sub universes and galaxies, all subdivided into further delineations of time and space.
Now for your made-up religion's structure, draw from a collection of texts that are among the oldest in the world written in one of the oldest known languages in the world, with authors unknown and the various texts relations to one another obscured. Then have various people through history focus on random selections from the mountainous volume of ancient scripts, and in turn, each write their own body of books with their own interpretations on these different topics. Have each of these authors be teachers of their particular method of interpretation throughout their lives, and their disciples spending their lives to become teachers, further interpreting on their master's work and further writing new volumes. All the while across these various branches, they find some obscure explanation about how they are really all one in the same, but paradoxically continue to live by their specific interpretations on bits and pieces of older traditions.

Now run an entire subcontinent on this system and let it propagate through 7,000 years and very little outside influence in the world other than a Muslim conquest on the upper half of the subcontinent. This is Hinduism. It is surprising to learn that the volumes of Hindu scripture through the ages were NOT the product of mind altering-drug trips. Given the facts about Hinduism, I would have ventured a guess that their culture since ancient times had revolved around LSD if I hadn't known better. Yet surprisingly, most Hindu theologies encourage a drug and alcohol free lifestyle to stay "clear-minded." It is so interesting because if you try to understand any one aspect of the clusterfuck that is Hinduism, I guarantee you will not be able to make heads or tails of it.



For instance, take one of the 300 million gods pictured here, Ganesha. Ganesha is a god of intellect and wisdom (I’m sure there are several other gods of wisdom) and has an elephant's head and four arms, traits that were vaguely influenced from various symbolisms of past idols and icons hundreds of years previously which have long since been forgotten. Of course! For fuck's sake, seriously go onto wikipedia and type in "mythological anecdotes of ganesha" and check out that article. It’s about three pages of text summarizing stories and traits attributed to this one god.

Now multiply that article times Hinduism’s self proclaimed "300 million gods" and that is not an exaggeration. There are literally stories just like that filling volumes of ancient texts about every one of their mythological gods.

If you were to survey India today, you can still find the entire gamut of gods being individually worshipped by individuals or maybe whole communities who focus on one god of choice.
Hinduism is absolutely insane, it is just batty. Now that that has been established, lets highlight why it is so high on this list at only number 5:
central to all those wildly varying branches of Hinduism, are some key tenets of karma, non-violence, and detachment from material "sense-gratification" as they call it. These concepts which go back into their ancient texts are the foundations that Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism were born of out of Hinduism. If you take karma in the non-spiritual sense, these are really great values to live by. By detachment from sense-gratification they mean asserting the idea in your life that you are not what you wear, you are not what latest ipod you have, and you are not your job title, there is more to you as a person. These are actually great values, and unlike Jainism or Buddhism which may lean towards full renunciation of life and going off to live in a cave, a majority of Hinduism teaches that you should in fact have a job and provide for your family, but be conscious that the material things don't make you who you are.

There is great knowledge to be had there, and the crucial step is recognizing there is no reason we can't read this knowledge from a Hindu book and exercise it in our own lives, but disregard the idea of all the ages, multiple worlds, and millions of gods with their random detailed stories. Hinduism earns fifth on this list because there are violent strains within Hinduism, Hindus still live with a very much real caste system, and much of the Indian landscape is still in economic, environmental, and humanitarian ruin.

To end on a good note, all of that engrained systematization has been raising generations of great electrical engineers, technicians, mathematicians, programmers, assemblers of microprocessors, and tech support agents for DELL. We don't do those things in America anymore because we are just waiting to be raptured up to heaven by Jesus H. Christ.

4. Judaism

Astrong case can be made that Judaism should actually be the number one most retarded religion if one focuses on history and the permeating negative effects the world has felt because of Judaic traditions, but I am giving Jews the benefit of the doubt and weighing more on the side of evaluating what their religion is today.

You see, if you go back I don’t know, 5,000 years before Jesus, (no one is exactly sure exactly when Judaism-proper actually surfaced into something distinctly new), 'religious' traditions in the middle east were as varied as the number of villages in different regions. There was every spectrum of belief as you moved between every geographic area, and these pre-Judaism religions of the land from what we know were very much in common with the ancient religions we see across the entire rest of the world: polytheistic, worshipping idols, thinking of all varieties of religious practice as essentially the same thing and therefore respecting other idols and cultures as equal to an extent... You see this monistic/deistic/polytheistic/tolerant approach in ancient Hinduism, pre-Judaic Greek mythology, and various native traditions of north and South America.

And then came a drastic new way of thinking that is first credited to the Jews: They came up with this new idea that there was strictly one god, and to call him anything else but god or to suggest that he had many equal deities which were all god was completely wrong and blasphemous. In addition, they inflicted upon themselves a ban on any form of idol worship and all kinds of stigmas surrounding diet, sexuality, pleasure and so on.
If this sounds familiar it is because it was from these corrupt foundations that Christianity and Islam were laid, maintaining much of these stigmas and strict monotheism.
Had we not ever invented this idea of strict monotheism with the Jews, perhaps this religious arrogance of "I am right you are wrong and I will kill for it" never would have evolved into its present form, since we don't find that in any other traditions before Judaism. (Correct me if I’m wrong, I haven't learned of any.)

Perhaps had we only kept all of the pagan traditions of all the lands and never been introduced to the madness of monotheism we could have evolved socially together as the world got smaller in the industrial age, and may have been perfectly armed to realize that these ancient traditions about god were silly.

But thanks to Judaism we have a handful of these religions now that insist that they possess a book that god wrote and that their way can be the only right way, and we have been well on down the road of the annihilation of mankind ever since.

That is the devastating historic stupidity. Then there are any number of tenets of the religion even as it stands today that are thirsty for criticism: the racist ideal that god chose "your people" over everyone else in the world, that god himself promised you certain real estate in his role as 'omniscient real estate broker' (Sam Harris), the completely arbitrary food purity laws, and the scarily anti-progressive and anti-outsider Hassidic/conservative groups. Judaism is weak, and to grant it one bit of respect since it claims exclusive truth one has to also respect any other tradition which asserts its exclusive truth. With all of them contradictory to one another in their mutual exclusivity, that means they can't all be right. The only stance a sane person can take is to not respect any of them as anything legitimate.

3. Christianity
Clocking in at number 3 I place Christianity. You will notice that Mormonism is number 2, but in reality Christianity is number 2 and I would include Mormonism in with that as well as Catholicism and so on. In this case I wanted to make a special slot for Mormonism at number 2 just to highlight its extra laughability.

But I really don't think that Christianity being charged as the second or third most retarded religion ever needs much of an explanation at all. You've got your crusades which mind you was many different wars waged across hundreds of years. You’ve got your inquisition. You’ve got your Salem witch trials. You’ve got your puritans sailing over and slaughtering the natives because it was their god-granted destiny, you've got anti-abortionists; you've got your Jerry Falwells, Pat Robertsons and Ted Haggards.

You’ve got money schemes and pedophilia engrained within the traditions. You’ve got children home schooled on nearly nothing but creationism and the bible (see jesuscamp).
You’ve got the endless guilt, shame, confusion, and self-hatred that are instilled generation after generation in Christian youth who are lectured against the evils of sex, masturbation, and basically any other religion or tradition that is not like theirs in any way.

2. Mormonism
like Sam Harris says, you take Christianity’s already absurd belief system and sprinkle in a bunch of unthinkably stupid things in on top and you've got Mormonism.
For starters Mormons, you want us to believe that an ordinary white man was visited by an angel and received the words of god, of which all evidence god purposefully destroyed afterwards, but you want us to reject the IDENTICAL story of the Arabian Muhammad? The story of the foundation of Islam is perfectly equated with the story of the creation of Mormonism as far as their level of likelihood or evidence of historic fact.

Two common fallacies that religious people appeal to are that the large number of their adherents and the length of time their belief has sustained make their religion true. Ex: "if its 2,000 years old and a quarter of the world still believe in it, it must be true!" Well, on these accounts, Islam is more "true" than Mormonism. Muhammad was getting revelations halfway through the 7th century, while Joseph Smith "received" his new vaguely Christian revelations in the early 19th! Islam claims over 21% of the world's sheep, I mean followers, while I'd be surprised if Mormonism was followed by 1%.
YOU LOSE, DIPSHITS. GOLDEN PLATES MY ASS.

We have yet to find a single archaeological record of any massive human civilizations in North America that predate Jesus, or of a great battle of immense proportions that was purportedly fought in North America in which tens of thousands perished on the battlefield.
I haven't even addressed aspects of their beliefs that are harmful and retarded, and I’m too pissed off for having to think about Mormons for this long so I’m just going to stop here.

1. Islam
Is this a surprise to anyone? Can you find anyone in an industrialized society that disagrees? Look, start with a ridiculous ancient Jewish religion that was around thousands of years before Christ, then take Christ’s further perversion of the established tradition into the Christians' whole weird thing, then take 7th century Arabian Bedouin tribal blood-feudal culture and have one of its members invent a new religion to gain power, all at once trying to appeal to both of the other two ridiculous traditions and incorporating the ancient desert disregard for human life, and you get Islam. Many Islamic countries have basically stayed at a cultural intellectual standstill since that invention in the 600's AD.

While it is debatable who has been responsible for the MOST religious killings in all of history between Christians and Muslims, I am going to argue that 1) the Christians had been at it 600 years longer 2) the Christians stopped endorsing it a long time ago 3) Muslim attacks nature on the side of being more brutal, barbaric, and misdirected. They aren’t just openly waging a declared battle against Christians, Jews, and nonbelievers, blowing up churches with missile strikes; they are blowing themselves up all over the place idiotically killing men, women, and children of their own kind. I don't know the statistics for a fact, but I would be willing to guess some Muslim Americans peacefully working in the trade center on September 11th 2001 were killed amidst the senseless killing. The crimes perpetrated by Islam are absolutely senseless and bloodthirsty. The religion is violent oppressive trash through and through. Its followers even kill each other through sectarian violence, with much collateral civilian death as a part of the endless fighting.

1300 years of Islam have many Islamic societies war-torn and in destitute poverty, its citizens hungry, exceedingly xenophobic and uneducated; where Islam is practiced there is a vacuum of human rights.

That anyone still speaks of Islam with any inclination of apology or kindness in this day is a sick joke. We cannot have intellectual honesty or global unification until we together address the problem of Islam for the sickness to the world that it is. Their children need to saved from rape, murder, and brainwashing, their women need to be liberated, their bloodthirsty grown men indoctrinated with the violent Koran all their lives - well, that’s the hard part. Not if, but WHEN it comes to the world vs. Islam, it will have to be addressed.

-GD

So Much Meat

Too bad I was without my cell phone camera yesterday evening as I examined with a cautious horror the bacterial slime waste in what looked to be a decade-old package of meat at the supermarket. Plastic containing one pound of some form of a pig oozed alone and unpurchased at the bottom of the bloodbath, at the lonely left end of the 10 yard meat shelf. The meat in question was brown, with large strips of discolored fat hardened to the flesh belonging to a once oinking and stomping friend.

Now, I'm no expert, but everything I seem to recall about eating and preparing meat is that it has to be pink and red when you take it home from the shop, and it needs to be carefully handled and cooked in a sterile environment where everything is cleaned thoroughly before and after preparation. But looking at this brown slab of rot left me certain that any fool willing to pay the $1.69 discounted price surely deserves his ill or deathly fate. I’m not making this up, it was really that questionable.

The bacteria was practically visible to my naked eyes, pools of bloody salmonella water filling the crevices between packages and staining the wire rack shelves; it nearly had me holding my breath just to get a closer look, the way you examine a corpse up close, the scent and microorganisms raging over the dead slab. I wondered: how long has this been here, rancid? Who looked at it, decided it’s been out too long to sell at full price, yet deemed it safe enough to keep on the shelf? What poor fuck would serve their children poorly disguised carcass for dinner? I also wondered about the pig it came from, thought about how scared he felt his entire life, never a moment of love shared with him.

Admittedly, I'm biased against the toxic waste diet (carnivorism) and yes, I look down on lowlifes willing to stoop to senseless violence to satiate their selfish lifestyles, "discount meat? Fuckin' bag it up!" There is no room for this attitude in our present situation; we can no longer live as though our choices have no impact on the world. We simply cannot sustain such a sickeningly wasteful diet that allows an animal’s life to be wasted while the food product it was ground up and reconstituted to resemble rots off of the shelf, even if it does “suit our tastes.” Are our tastes for flesh worth the murder of animals and the starvation of children (abroad and right here at home) that results from our misguided grain allocation and over-consumption of the world’s resources? I think it’s something like roughly 5 percent of the world’s population here in the US uses 30% of the resources and we produce 30% of the waste . Do we need the ribs of a baby lamb in our hands to feel satisfied and nourished?

Ok, I’m using a piece of rotten meat to make an example here because it strikes me as totally appropriate and representative of how so many people approach life. Mentioning that one rotten package that probably had to be thrown away is to say nothing of the ton (and I do mean here literally two thousand pounds) of other grotesque selections you can find in a typical grocery store.

You know, I think I WILL say something about them. cheddar liver-wurst? "turkey" ham, “turkey” bacon, “turkey” hotdogs, “kosher” hotdogs (which by the way are the fucking stupidest thing I think I’ve heard of, those and the whole “kosher” meal plan), stringy pink ground beef, rack of lamb, chicken legs, chicken breast, boneless chicken? rump roast, steak, [and my god there is so much meat being processed it's rotting off the shelves…[it would be really nice here to write a short paragraph on the concept that the way you know meat is being wasted, is by the fact alone that if you go to a supermarket, you know with absolute certainty you can find X meat product. if they are out of one, it would be utterly rare and astonishing and the staff would apologize thoroughly as if they had committed a great sin upon you. If no one ever experiences running out of a meat cut, that means there necessarily has to be a surplus. Add that surplus up across every supermarkert in America. Fucking scary!!1]

It is an 'easy out' and a fundamentally escapist excuse [for meat eaters who actually acknowledge the problem] to say that “there is nothing we can do to make a difference, so let’s keep doing what we’re doing.” This is typically paired with a general aversion to learning the truth about where our “food” and all of our stuff comes from, how it could be so cheap for us, and who the cost really falls upon. Think your hamburgers are fast, easy, and cheap? It’s because there’s no real nutrition there, the employees who waste their lives serving you get paid shit and have no health insurance. That’s sure shittier than what you eat, but you don’t have to support it anymore. It’s challenging to effectively communicate how easy and gratifying it is to prepare a delicious meal with your own two hands, with fresh and local organic produce and cruelty-free ingredients. But easy doesn’t mean that it doesn’t take work.

First, you need to reevaluate what is more expensive to you: a few extra bucks for organic and local ingredients at the grocery store, or the high prices paid in human and animal lives in efforts to perpetuate what is ultimately an unsustainable system? The point isn’t to live perfectly, it’s to be conscious, conscious about what you consume. Now, try telling me how someone determined that one dollar and sixty-nine cents was a reasonable price in exchange for the cost of raising, feeding, killing, packaging, and transporting that pig. Who paid for the wasted meat?


-BB

A List of Common Fallacies

In an argument, you may encounter some of the following common fallacies. You might try asking for evidence and independent confirmation, or ask them to provide other hypotheses that give a simpler explanation. If this fails, try to pinpoint the problem with your opponents argument. You might spot an error in logic that prevents further debate and attempt to inform your opponent about his or her fallacy.

ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.
appeal to ignorance (argumentum ex silentio) appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. (e.g., We have no evidence that God doesn't exist, therefore, he must exist. Or: Because we have no knowledge of alien visitors, that means they do not exist). Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence.

argument from omniscience: (e.g., All people believe in something. Everyone knows that.) An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs or about their knowledge. Beware of words like "all," "everyone," "everything," "absolute." Similar to bandwagon fallacy (e.g., Most people believe in a god; therefore, it must prove true.) Simply because many people may believe something says nothing about the fact of that something.

appeal to faith: (e.g., if you have no faith, you cannot learn) if the arguer relies on faith as the bases of his argument, then you can gain little from further discussion. Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought and produces intransigence.

argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): using the words of an "expert" or authority as the bases of the argument instead of using the logic or evidence that supports an argument. (e.g., Professor so-and-so believes in creation-science.) Simply because an authority makes a claim does not necessarily mean he got it right. If an arguer presents the testimony from an expert, look to see if it accompanies reason and sources of evidence behind it.

argumentum ad baculum: An argument based on an appeal to fear or a threat. (e.g., If you don't believe in God, you'll burn in hell)
begging the question (or assuming the answer): (e.g., We must encourage our youth to worship God to instill moral behavior.) But does religion and worship actually produce moral behavior?

circular reasoning: stating in one's proposition that which one aims to prove. (e.g. God exists because the Bible says so; the Bible exists because God influenced it.)
composition fallacy: when the conclusion of an argument depends on an erroneous characteristic from parts of something to the whole or vice versa. (e.g., Humans have consciousness and human bodies and brains consist of atoms; therefore, atoms have consciousness. Or: a word processor program consists of many bytes; therefore a byte forms a fraction of a word processor.)

confusion of correlation and causation: (e.g., More men play chess than women, therefore, men make better chess players than women. Or: Children who watch violence on TV tend to act violently when they grow up.) But does television programming cause violence or do violence oriented children prefer to watch violent programs? Perhaps an entirely different reason creates violence not related to television at all. Stephen Jay Gould called the invalid assumption that correlation implies cause as "probably among the two or three most serious and common errors of human reasoning" (The Mismeasure of Man).

half-truths (suppressed evidence): An statement usually intended to deceive that omits some of the facts necessary for an accurate description.

loaded questions: embodies an assumption that, if answered, indicates an implied agreement. (e.g., Have you stopped beating your wife yet?)

non sequitur: Latin for "It does not follow." An inference or conclusion that does not follow from established premises or evidence. (e.g., there occured an increase of births during the full moon. Conclusion: full moons cause birth rates to rise.) But does a full moon actually cause more births, or did it occur for other reasons, perhaps from expected statistical variations?

observational selection (similar to confirmation bias): pointing out favorable circumstances while ignoring the unfavorable. Anyone who goes to Las Vegas gambling casinos will see people winning at the tables and slots. The casino managers make sure to install bells and whistles to announce the victors, while the losers never get mentioned. This may lead one to conclude that the chances of winning appear good while in actually just the reverse holds true.

proving non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist (e.g., prove God doesn't exist; prove UFO's haven't visited earth, etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

red herring: when the arguer diverts the attention by changing the subject.
reification fallacy: when people treat an abstract belief or hypothetical construct as if it represented a concrete event or physical entity. Examples: IQ tests as an actual measure of intelligence; the concept of race (even though genetic attributes exist), from the chosen combination of attributes or the labeling of a group of people, come from abstract social constructs; Astrology; god(s); Jesus; Santa Claus, etc.

slippery slope: a change in procedure, law, or action, will result in adverse consequences. (e.g., If we allow doctor assisted suicide, then eventually the government will control how we die.) It does not necessarily follow that just because we make changes that a slippery slope will occur.

straw man: creating a false scenario and then attacking it. (e.g., Evolutionists think that everything came about by random chance.) Most evolutionists think in terms of natural selection which may involve incidental elements, but does not depend entirely on random chance. Painting your opponent with false colors only deflects the purpose of the argument.

-compiled by LN

BB Reviews BOOKS: Infidel By Hirsi Ali

This book reveals vivid, beatific memories of this former African Muslim’s life that is now lived under security protection. Hirsi Ali recounts her profound experience of gender oppression and general subservience within the confines of Islam, her former religion. I read this and felt everything: nostalgia, frustration, repulsion, nausea, sadness, happiness. In a composite discussion of her life, Hirsi Ali describes her gradual realization that she is an atheist, not a Muslim as she’d tried to believe her entire life. Particularly interesting were her accounts of daily life growing up in Somalia, Saudi Arabia, and Kenya with her family. Her family members struggled with the task of maintaining their tribal identities while following closely on the upsurge of increasingly devout practice of Islam. One memory she tells that particularly speaks to her cause against the unbridled violence in Islam is the scene of her and her siblings’ circumcisions, not at birth which could be arguably the least traumatic, but at the ages of four, five, and six. Without numbing, a doctor used scissors to cut off her inner labia and clitoris, “like a butcher snipping the fat off a piece of meat.” He then used a bent needle to sew the wound and used his teeth to break the thread.
.

Her story is full up of dramatic familial and career struggles and her efforts to survive when everyone has tried to beat her down. Her Qur’an teacher fractured her skull for alleged insubordination, her mother visibly deteriorates with the burdens of her life and of poverty; her family is torn about and beaten down. Hirsi Ali spares none of the sickening details of what she and her mother, sisters, aunts, and friends were all subjected to in the name of ancient tradition of Islam.

After fleeing to Denmark to seek refugee status, the young intellectual developed a clearer picture of Islam’s effects on cities and families, on men, wives, and children. She supports fiercely the need to openly acknowledge Islam’s inherent persecution and abuse of women and exploitative tendencies. She tries to relate to the position of a defensive woman in submission, one who insists that nothing is wrong and that everything is as it should be. By the time she has a seat in Dutch Parliament, her understanding of Islam as a cruel and rampant religion has fully unfolded as she has seen the successful workings of a society where women are free to live their lives: men are not thrown into sexual frenzy at the gesture of a womanly outline, the whole of society is not crippled with sexually-repressed perversion, and women and wives don’t have to submit to the “victim” role to have a place in society.
Incredibly powerful and informative, Infidel deserves thoughtful consideration and a wide readership. It offers clarifying insights into a society that is bogged down with an unmatchable sense of victimization and aggression, into a system of brainwashing so powerful that it is fully isolated from criticism of any kind without the risk of death. I believe her.

This woman survived the unthinkable murder of her colleague in 2004 when a letter addressed to her was stabbed into Theo van Gogh’s corpse; she now lives under constant security so she isn’t murdered by one of the huge number of villainous Muslims calling for her blood. This is the result of our continual failure to address the very real threat that Islam wields to the modern world
-BB

A Word To Islamofascists

by Pat Condell:

September 11th Rememberance

It has been 5 years since the most gruesome primitive attack of religious mass killing on American soil has happened. As thousands of people went to work in the world trade center towers that morning like any other, they could not possibly imagine the bloody fate that would await them that day. A fate that no one on earth should possibly ever have to endure. The effect it had on our country, the affected families, and all of us is scarring.


Let us please not forget what was at essence of these modern-aged attacks of middle-aged ignorance and barbarity. With utter importance that is nearly critical to our ability to continue to survive into the future as a species, let us not forget that these hideous attacks were in the name of someone's ideas of god. Let us be disgusted that our world continues to be a place in which people kill each other over beliefs which all claim to be exclusively correct, and similarly all over not a shred of proof or relevance to today's lives. Let us be disgusted at the response that our government-elect gave to the global stage –our own president announcing a holy war in response, and citing what god wants many times in public speeches. What worse of a possible response could there be than to say you will stand up for the god which people of other beliefs hate you for believing in?

As the hijacker's crashed the planes that day, the recordings play back their screams of

"Allaahu Akbar! Laa ilaaha illa-Lah!" – "God allah is great, there is none worthy of worship except allah"



While I reject all thoughts and beliefs in god and detest all of the actions such beliefs lead people to do, this does not make me unpatriotic. Let the videos of the attacks, videos of the civilian death toll in our continuing war on terror, the American captive beheading videos, let them all be uncensored and broadcasted everywhere as a reminder of what we are really at war with – the clash of ideals of god.



For humans to continue to live together and progress toward anything without complete cataclysmic destruction of one another most pressingly hinges on the ability of us to recognize the horrible things blind baseless faith makes people do. More specifically –

Our ability to objectively and realistically understand that islam is an incredibly powerful force of blind faith that has oppression and malevolent violence tied to its roots since the beginning, and that Christianity and its exclusiveness on equally zero evidence is no better.

This is for everyone that lost their lives on that day because of someone's "god".

-GD

Teddy Bear Vs. Islam

 I overheard the news story a few days ago, about a british woman who was doing work teaching kids in africa, and had let the class choose a name for the class teddy bear. They chose the name muhammad, after a boy in the class that everyone thought was funny. then what followed was the usual - muslims getting pissed off. I thought, "man, how stupid." then forgot about it. but today at like 8am putting my shoes on to go to work I turned on CNN and they were covering the story.

take a look at the story here if you are unfamiliary with it.

So what I see are Muslims taking to the streets, shouting, carrying swords, some prominant muslims calling for the teacher's execution. Now,  you all already know my opinion on Islam (and that is: BLOW ME), and that's not what this anger-filled rant is about... What I'm angry about is what followed in response, just as it always does: The teacher backs down 100% saying "I have the topmost respect for Islam, and it was an absolute accident, I would never knowingly offend anyone." and various public officials step in and go on TV relaying her message to the public there, so that muslims will try to forgive and move on, all the while all the officials have the maximum shit-eating apologetic tone.

WRONG! WRONG!! THIS IS NOT THE INTELLIGENT RESPONSE!! How much longer are we the civilized world going to allow Islam to grow as a threat to all of the modern world? We are just going to continue to ignore and not understand how vile their religion actually is, and try to just keep it out of sight and mind until they get pissed off about something in the streets, and then we cower back completely out of great fear because we have seen all the murders and carbombings muslims have performed in the line of duty?

I can PROMISE you that if the teacher named the teddy bear Jesus, and christians protested and let them know that they felt disrespected, most people would probably brush it off, shrugging and saying, "whatever, it's just a bear, you can't please everyone." You know why? because Christians aren't on TV every day waving swords in the street, burning effigies, leaving carbomb craters in the streets, or calling for the execution of any public official they deem as offensive to their religion. I mean fuck, do I actually have to defend Christianity to prove this point? Is that just how retarded muslims are?

The difference? ISLAM ITSELF IS THE THREAT. While not different from all other religions in the sense that is comprised of all made-up stories and crazy superstitions, islam distinguishes itself as being sickly violent towards women, nonbelievers, apostates, and anyone who is not muslim. Direct commands from the pages of their "holy" texts.

The civilized world, global community, needs to acknowledge this fact and stop being apologetic to islam just because "they are scary." I agree, they scare the shit out of me, but this is not the right response to these type of situations. the same thing happened over the last two years with the danish cartoons depicting muhammad. Muslims took to the streets of all cities that had publications that ran the cartoons, and very soon all of the publications and even city officials stepped out and said "OK, we are sorry, we didnt realize, we won't print them anymore", and you had cnn covering the story, and when they showed the comic on-screen, it was simply a big black square because CNN WAS SCARED TO SHOW IT THEMSELVES.

This is the wrong reaction. The best action the teacher could have taken, is to deliver a televised speech addressed to the muslim community, as follows: "Dear Muslims, I never wanted to knowingly offend anyone by my simple teddy bear naming game with my class. But, having learned of your incomprehensibly ignorant response to my naming of a teddy bear by calling for my execution, I have decided the bear will no longer be named after the boy in our class named muhammad, but he will instead be named muhammad after your so-called illiterate despot prophet . To best reflect this change, I have now fitted him with a turbin, a miniature sword covered in Christian, Jewish, and non-believer blood, a stack of stolen treasures from various pillaged shrines and jewish communities, and his robes are now up around his waist where i have sewn onto him the likeness of a nine year old girl bending over as if getting fucked in the ass by muhammad to reflect his multiple child wives. I have no respect for your childishly ignorant religion, and in the civilized world we don't call for public mob-executions."

The president of the country, Sudan, should then come on and reaffirm her position and provide federal money for her protection, and he should be ready to send commands to his military to uphold the same position if they are needed. All civilized countries of the world should then come on publicly and stand behind them also, diplomatically and militarily.

Islam is filthy, ignorant, vile 7th century superstition that poses a real threat to the entire globe since we have ignored it for so long. Let's grow a spine and fucking stand up against this abhorration of human rights that is a religion. If America really is so keen on their forced "ACCEPT OUR DEMOCRACY NOW" policy like they claim they are (as a false pretense to gain oil), then they would come out and realize we are really at war with Islam.

-GD

Quantum Mechanics

"I often dreamt of falling. Such dreams are commonplace to the ambitious or those who climb mountains. Lately I dreamed I was clutching at the face of a rock, but it would not hold. Gravel gave way. I grasped for a shrub, but it pulled loose, and in cold terror I fell into the abyss. Suddenly I realized that my fall was relative; there was no bottom and no end. A feeling of pleasure overcame me. I realized that what I embody, the principle of life, cannot be destroyed. It is written into the cosmic code, the order of the universe. As I continued to fall in the dark void, embraced by the vault of the heavens, I sang to the beauty of the stars and made my peace with the darkness."

-Heinz Pagels, physicist and quantum mechanics researcher before his death in a 1988 climbing accident.

-GD

RECIPE: Neapolitan Pizza "Marinara" by XO

[Editor's note: we will have one recipe a month, and you will only find vegan food discussed herein. We do not refer to meat and dairy as "food", so if you ever read us print about food, it is assumed to be vegan]

For the dough:

• 27 oz Bread Flour
• 20-22 oz Ice cold water
• 2 1/8 tsp sea salt
• 1 1/2 tsp active dry yeast

For the sauce:

• 1 28 oz can whole plum tomatoes (get Muir Glen if you can) or whole San Marzano tomatoes
• 3-4 Tbs Extra Virgin Olive Oil
• 2-4 cloves garlic
• 1 1/2 tsp dried oregano, or 1 1/2 Tbs fresh oregano
• Salt and pepper to taste
• 4-6 fresh basil leaves (optional)

For topping:

• 30-40 cherry tomatoes, preferably organic, sliced in half from stem end
• 4-6 garlic cloves sliced paper thin
• Extra Virgin Olive Oil
• Oregano
• Fresh Basil Leaves, julienned

The day or night before baking:

In a large mixing bowl, sprinkle yeast over 4 oz of lukewarm water, and leave for five minutes to hydrate yeast. Meanwhile mix bread flour and salt together. When yeast is hydrated and dissolved, add 16 oz ice cold water to yeast mixture followed by salt and flour mixture and mix by hand with hand kneading (though this will be hard as this is a very wet dough) or mix with a wooden spoon, or mix by machine, just until dough comes together and no flour shows, about six minutes.

Add remaining water a tablespoon at a time if dough isn't right consistency during mixing. Immediately after mixing if mixing bowl isn't at least twice the size of the dough, move to an appropriate bowl and cover tightly with plastic wrap and leave in refrigerator overnight, taking care to keep dough cold all through mixing until removing from refrigerator the next day (though this day will actually keep at least three days in the refrigerator with no negative discernible effects. (Though I'd bet the dough will last longer than a week in the refrigerator)

Bake day:

On the day of baking remove bowl and dough from the refrigerator between six and eight hours before baking and leave on counter to come to room temperature and ferment.
Meanwhile prepare sauce by processing all ingredients in a blender or with a hand blender until smooth, you may leave the sauce unrefrigerated for six hours before food safety becomes an issue. The sauce will keep for four to seven days refrigerated, allow sauce to come to room temperature before using.

When dough has come to room temperature and allowed to ferment until at least 25% percent larger in size, no longer than four hours, heavily flour a clean work surface with bread flour and carefully remove (pour) dough from bowl onto work surface keeping the dough in one piece. Flour dough surface and cut dough with bench scraper or other flat sharp edge into five or six equally weighted pieces, for five pizzas, between 9 and 10 oz, for six about 7.5 oz. with floured hands to avoid sticking, pull dough pieces into balls with a tight, unbroken skin and the seam on bottom, and set on clean surface and cover with either oiled plastic wrap or a floured tea towel.

Allow dough to rest for at least a half hour. Meanwhile pre-heat oven with baking stone positioned in the second to highest rack position to highest heat setting, ideally this should be somewhere between 750 and 800 degrees Fahrenheit, but 550 or even 500 will work. After dough has been allowed to relax and oven has been allowed to heat for at least a half hour, dust flour liberally over surface of dough balls and remove a dough ball from surface with bench scraper, using flour to push and help scrape underneath of dough for easier extraction and to maintain integrity of round dough shape, onto a lightly floured pizza peel or appropriately sized wooden cutting board, large enough to cater a fifteen inch diameter round.

With floured hands, lightly press with your finger or knuckles to make a flattened round with dough, if dough springs back and resists flattening allow more time for the dough to relax. To finish shaping the dough, take flattened round into your hands, actually the top of your hands, and either by the doughs own weight or soft easy stretching with your knuckles, stretch dough into a round that's transparent when held up to light, taking care not to tear dough, though with practice you may mend such tears. This round should be between 9 and 13 inches in diameter, use flour lightly to keep dough from sticking if necessary. When stretched, place pizza dough back on lightly floured peel and shake peel to ensure dough is loose and not sticking to the peel. Use your hands to correct shape if necessary.

Working fast yet careful not get peel wet with any toppings, spread 1/3 to 2/3 C sauce to within 3/4 inch of doughs lip, followed by one-fifth of sliced garlic, a drizzle of olive oil, and finally one-fifth of the sliced tomatoes, shaking peel every so often to ensure dough isn't sticking. Working fast (this dough really has a tendency to stick if you don't keep it moving) carefully transfer pizza onto hot baking stone by sliding dough off at about a 10 degree angle from the horizontal, and close oven door swiftly so not to let heat escape.

Bake for about six minutes, turning once, until crust has browned and toppings are cooked through, slight crust charring isn't a bad thing. Remove from oven when ready and sprinkle with oregano, slice pizza, and sprinkle with basil, and drizzle again with olive oil if desired, serve hot. Repeat with remaining pizza doughs. If not using every pizza dough, each ball may be kept in an oiled sandwich bag and kept in the refrigerator for at least three days. Improvise on the toppings yourself, but remember to keep the toppings light, the pizza simply will not bake or transfer to the oven if the toppings are too heavy. Consider marinated mushrooms, artichoke hearts, olives, spinach, or sliced onions.

-XO

What We Must Do by Bertrand Russell (from Why I Am Not A Christian)

We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world -- its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is and be not afraid of it. Conquer the world by intelligence and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it.

The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings.
We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face.

We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create.

-LN

For The Love of God

I was thinking of doing a piece called "For the Love of God" which has to do with piety = vanity = pride = sin. Our editor asked if I would leave my introduction like that, and so I have, as it appears before you. And on is the article, but I would like to assert that calling this an article I think is a word misappropriation; I don't get to make those rules, so call this what you will.

In its tenets, the ten commandments, Christianity really does appear to be a morally (another topic you can look forward to) sound faith without a sense of ego. Don't murder, remain faithful to your convictions, don't steal, don't lie, and the golden rule, the maxim of empathy, treats others as you'd wish to be treated, a set of words a father may tell his children, and unquestioningly they'll be heeded to some ability.

When you're young do you listen to your father for the sake of yourself, to remain in good standing or at the very least avoid punishment, or because you understand that others feel?

The motive one has to pursue any faith is for eternal salvation, self-preservation, for a reward for your loyalty to the intangible. In Christianity after you die, if you've done what the dogma has asked of you, you spend eternity in heaven. In Islam and Judaism it's basically the same thing, you go to be with God, to be somewhere better. In Buddhism it's nirvana. In Hinduism a better position in reincarnation. This is ego. This is where you decide your religion is the right religion because the after plan makes the most sense. This is where you decide you even need a system of beliefs in the first place, it doesn't take god for you to know to not steal or murder or do wrong, you know this because you know pain and you know the feeling of being the victim of a so-called sin and you know you don't like it. The golden rule is self-evident.

I have to say I apologize for using Mother Teresa in the following context, because she was a great woman: I was watching a religious debate and it wasn't very different most I've seen, most of the points have been argued over and over and points made were tritely argued and moot and unresolved. But what stuck out was a point one of the debaters made using Mother Teresa, he paraphrased another quote that went along the lines of the Mother Teresa saying the work she does, she wouldn't do for any amount of money in the world, for she does it for the love of God. And the other debater laughed and scoffed. Just as easily for the deeds and charity she's done, she could have said she's just happy to help make a positive impact on any one life, though with just that that's quite an understatement, but instead she professed piety. And for me this is what piety is; in a harsher, blunter way of saying it, it's playing teacher's pet or being the favorite child. In a psychological way of describing it this is the ultimate appeasement of the superego. In a summary, for the love of God, this is a step closer to your granted ultimate reward in paradise upon judgment, this is you thinking for yourself, piety is zealousness is vanity is pride is a deadly sin, this is only you trying to climb up in supernatural selection, to be in better standing with the giver of your great gift post-life, because there is something far greater than you can imagine where you can go after this suffering. The pursuit of heaven wouldn't have nearly as much appeal if you weren't suffering here.

But then go ahead and argue that there's reward outside of heaven just in the acts of kindness and sainthood. Then consider I don't need heaven or the love of God because that same reward is good enough for me.


-XO

Review: While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying The West From Within, by Bruce Bawer

The basic premise is this: Muslims (Muslim men, the women have no rights to make their own choices), having shitty living conditions or desiring more opportunity, move in mass amounts to their neighboring European countries where they have no plan of integrating into society and are encouraged to exploit the social welfare systems which they have no problem doing as they see it as their right to take from the prosperity that non-islamic 'infidels' possess. These transplanted Muslims enjoy remaining free from enforcement of their host country's law because in post-WWII Europe, the politically-correct paranoia of not appearing as discriminatory or racist towards any group is the top priority. Even when a group's practices are blatant violations of human rights such as muslim "honor killing" of their own daughters who get raped because it is "their own fault" and have shamed their family name, European law enforcement authorities turn the other cheek because they don't want to 'discriminate' against 'cultural practices.'

Propagating the matter out of hand is the common practice of importing brides. The male Muslim establishes a life first through the benefits of social welfare, then exploiting European countries' laws encouraging "diversity" and "integration" in immigration, they practically pay the way to import wives and other family members, granting them all kinds of incentives and leniencies to become residents. With no intention of integrating into western society, as it is theologically at odds with their core beliefs, they establish ghetto communities that have grown to the point that effectively shut out westerners in their own lands. White westerners practically can't safely go through these all-muslim colonies and the police as well avoid it entirely.

Bawer highlights the statistics and terrorist events that have occurred in Europe as these Muslim immigrant rates have increased hugely in the last 10 years. He recounts with more truthful bloodiness than the mainstream media ever had the Islamic terrorist attacks of the last 10 years or so. He cites mainstream print and TV media from the times of the attacks which always blame them on poverty and oppression within the Muslim world, never suggesting something is wrong with Islam itself and its corrupt theology. September 11^th, Madrid subway bombing, the Russian middle school held hostage for two days that ended in a pile of bodies, the over 100 dead in the Muhammad cartoon fiasco, riots in the streets of paris, burning of embassies, large Muslim congregations and marches in European streets calling for the death of America, Denmark, and democracy, with police standing by idle to not be deemed as racially discriminating.

Make no mistake, Bruce Bawer has absolutely obliterated any remaining doubt anyone might have hung onto about the existence of the Islamic problem in Europe and the west, but I feel like he was really writing two books: How Radical Islam Is Destroying The West From Within, and Why European Countries are Baselessly Anti-American When America is So Much Better.

Every point -no, not point, FACT that Bawer presents about the Muslim Problem is absolutely dead-on and could not be more relevant or more important for everyone in the industrialized nations to read and take serious notice of. Sandwiched in-between the stunningly urgent cries for action against islam that are absolutely solidly rooted in fact in the intro and the ending lies the second book title that I made up, above, where at length he systematically makes a tour in the text of virtually every country of the European Union to highlight their rampant anti-Americanism while addressing their shortcomings behind our "great" America.

During this midsection, the point he makes is not without merit: That European countries consider themselves far elite over the ignorant religious/cowboy-politics of America, and that frequently whenever something goes wrong in European countries it is always blamed on "American-conditions". Basically American is a synonym for "bad" there. This point is taken, that probably these countries take the anti-Americanism too far and just begin to blanketly oppose all things American, but Bawer never addresses any validity behind why people actually have those opinions. There are plenty of reasons to oppose general American opinion and policy or consider oneself anti-American, very good reasons, and that could have been addressed more fairly.

On the count of being a guide for the average European or American to the severity of the Islamic issue, I don't think a better one could be written. I think this book is a fantastic primer especially for Americans who still may deny on some level that Islam itself is anything other than a threat to the entire world with it's 7^th-century ignorance.

-GD

Review: Blasphemy: How the Religious Right is Hijacking the Declaration of Independence by Alan Dershowitz

Blasphemy: How the Religious Right is Hijacking the Declaration of Independence
by Alan Dershowitz.

First off, this book is fantastic. It should be a pre-requisite reader for anyone who wants to have a conversational-interest in American politics and policy or participate in American politics. Actually, let's just make it a standard read for 5th to 8th graders when they start to learn about American history.

This book denounces the movement in contemporary American politics of right-wing religious conservatives using the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as being in support of their purely christian ideals and agendas, going so far as to saying that all the founding fathers were deeply christian and that our country's founding documents were always meant to be upholding these christian values for this CHRISTIAN NATION. Dershowitz accomplishes this by relying nearly solely on the words of the founding fathers themselves, using extensive contextual citations from their public and private works to get surprisingly specific opinions from them on these exact topics. Reading quote after quote of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin denouncing the bible and foretelling of the dangers of involving religion in politics will have you saying "Really? Those guys wrote that? That is so telling, how did I never hear of that before?" and will live absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that the modern-day religious right's christian agenda in our politics is PRECISELY what the founding fathers wrote their founding documents AGAINST.

It would lend itself well for children to read, since the writing style is minimal and clear. A christian might even be able to understand it. There are no unfounded accusations or opinions here, no literary acrobatics or selective quoting going on. We just have account after account from the pen of Thomas Jefferson himself refferring to the bible as "dung" and entirely made-up, unbelievable, and self-contradictory. We have extensive quotations from the founding father's intentions in writing the declaration of independence, and there is really no mistake that religion is meant to stay completely separate from politics. Nowhere once in the constitution or declaration of independence is any reference made to Jesus or the god of the bible, and Dershowitz explains why that is not an accident.

In short, this was yet another book I selected to fuel my growing intolerance for religious belief. While we have always known how ignorant and stupid right wingers sound when they say things like "this is a christian nation founded on christian ideals and therefore we should make gays illegal / not teach evolution / teach bible in the classroom...", but now having read these firsthand quotes of the intentions of the founding fathers, we know that statements like these are so far off of reality and really just show an embarrassing stupidity and ignorance on the topic of our founding documents and our country's history.

This is not a Christian nation, it was not founded on christian ideals, and the Declaration of Independence stands to prevent and oppose the very agendas that those of the religious-right are pushing into our politics.

-GD