Mostafa. With all due respect, you are wrong. Blind Democracy exists
as a list on which participants can express their opinions on a wide
range of subjects, including on political issues; as well as a place
to share various publications and articles.
You also place far too much importance on the role of religion in the
American Empire's activities.
This nation grew out of a wide mixture of immigrants, with a wide
range of religions and societal customs, including non religious
beliefs. What built the nation into the dominant world power had
little to do with Faith or lack of Faith. It had everything to do
with an aggressive People who found a People who lacked the level of
military sophistication to resist being overwhelmed. The basic
strength of this new nation was a common thread of aggressiveness.
Some of the People prayed to one God or another, some of the People
did not have a need to create a God to cling to. But all of them had
a desire to conquer everything around them, including the People, the
Animals, the Land and the Environment.
Whether you agree or not, Mostafa, this is exactly the same Force that
drives your People, and All People. We dress it up and call it by
many names, but our climb to the top of the Food Chain is due to our
aggressiveness.
Finally, for this note, you have insulted me greatly. How dare you
suggest that I am "leaning" toward Roger. I respect Roger. I feel he
speaks his positions very well. But I am my own person. I do not
need Roger's confirmation, although at times we do agree. I do not
need some make believe Almighty Being to lean on. You make it very
clear that you need such an imaginary Super Father in order to make
sense out of a Universe that is so vast that it can be frightening.
Fine. That works for you. But you make the same mistake that all
dependent people make. You assume that if you need a God Figure, then
everybody needs one.
Personally, I wish for you a long and joyful life. But when that day
comes when you close your eyes for the last time, you will never know
if there is Life after Death, or not.
Respectfully,
Carl Jarvis
On 4/26/19, Mostafa <ebob824@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello, the blind democracy list is dedicated to criticise American
politics. Nonetheless, because of its intensely anti religion
sentiment, it deliberately dismisses major factors that are directly
affiliated with their regularly hashed out interest. Roger, the
moderator of this list despises faith in genral. Thence, the subject
is obtrusively finagled. As proved earlier, religion plays a crucial
role in the exercise of American politics. It is primarily motored
with Lutheran based doctrines. You couldn't conveniently dispose the
decisive fact that America bases its firm alliance with Israel on
essentially religious tenets and motives. Roger once told me, and I am
paraphrasing what he said. There are many aspects to criticise Israel
with. Why do you harass people with religion? Because it comprises
with basal human experience, cultural and civil emergence. It isn't my
prob if someone doesn't like this fact, even though he is the list
owner and moderator. Instead of advising me to create my own list
which is absolutely fine, doable and appreciated, but, it would have
been much way better if you fairly disclosed your actual disposal. You
once admitted that you hated faith but haven't said why. You have
constantly evaded the usage of faith by oval office to justify racial
disparity and savagery. Do you have a suffice proof that science makes
religion irrational? When I asked you to cite your reference about
your claims regarding the Koran, you have fetched an anonymous
textbook which you said you read. With this praxis, you have
explicitly breached the minimal requirements of maintaining
objectivity. I wished you brought me something valuable. If you have
done so, we would have kept a fruitful conversation. When you brought
me something anonymous as such, you have done three things with this.
First, I was offended because I felt that you weren't so serious about
the subject. I felt you were attempting to marginalise my faith by not
being so serious and possibly rather sarcastic which is utterly
unbearable. Second, you have lost credibility with me because you have
done the same thing with the alleged Biology certificate which has
never been released. Third, you have repeatedly and concurrently,
unprovably claimed that you won the debate which is just not true and
you knew so. I honour objectiveness and repudiate equivocation.
Democracy is the belief that the numerical majority of an organised
group can make decisions binding on favourable notions. So often,
minor opinions may not necessarily be welcomed in democratically
governed entities. It is not inevitable, that a democratically based
opinion is correct. In this list, I am viewed as the bad religious guy
because the lion's share of this list members is in favour of opting
irreligiousness. The opposite would have been exactly applied. Our
conscience enjoins us to seek for the truth despite what the
consequences are. The strive for truth seeking is odd to some people
though. As they may have been basing their denial of the truth on
private interest, they would never listen to it. This phenomenon is
verified historically. Ancient pagans of Arabia have opposed the
prophet, even they knew their worship of idols is totally false and
vanished. They have committed what is jurally known as anticipatory
breach. Basically, they hated what Monotheism is calling for and
hence, refused to accept it. The same holds true for contemporary anti
religion individuals and groups. They do not refuse religion because
they have the proof of its falsehood, but rather, because they already
hate what it calls for, so they refuse it beforehand. I would ask
Roger and his affiliates here to justly admit this invincible fact. It
is perfectly unconscionable and ethically contemned not to comply with
what you knew is true. I respectfully urge each and everyone here to
stop doing to me what he criticises the government of dooing. Even
Carl, whom I initially thought of him being relatively different and
deferent, has eventually leaned toward standing by Roger's position,
even he knew that Roger committed incredible offences regarding the
rulings of any civil discussion. Carl has done so for plain
considerations that are principally including, faith, race etc. In
conclusion then, each and everyone here has a lengthy journey of
amending certain assumptions. I sincerely wish to longly maintain a
civil discussion. But, when I feel that my orientation is being
disrespected, I obviously refrain. Lastly, I wish each and everyone
here a pleasant weekend with families and loved ones.