Project Humanbeingsfirst's comment for 'Religion and Morality' By Maryam Sakeenah. This is a slightly elaborated version of the comment posted for that article on March 03, 2010 here.
I am neither a Kant, nor prophet, nor pious philosopher. And just employing ordinary powers of observation that is available to any plebeian, suggests what's encapsulated in the title of my comment. And it is elaborated here:
It is also a tad useful to be able to separate philosophical arguments, from those made by any two-bit 'House Negro' in the service of the sovereign white man's mantras du jour! I have no time for House Negroes.
But I do have time for philosophers, truth-tellers of all stripes, and most importantly, those who can reflect beyond the megabits and megabytes, i.e., those who are able to tell the difference between possessing copious amounts of information, and being able to think, reflect - whether or not one reaches the same conclusion, and whether or not one uses the same processes. Bring the arguments borne of reflection, not assertions, and not data-processing. Make clear the axioms upon which arguments are based, and show them to be true, or on what basis they are chosen.
One aspect of the argument brought by the previous commenter is very pertinent:
Known and very popular cialis coupon which gives all the chance to receive a discount for a preparation which has to be available and exactly cialis coupons has been found in the distant room of this big house about which wood-grouses in the houses tell.
It is a Bertrand Russell variant: Can Scientific Society be Stable. The metric, "Stable" is very telling. A draconian prison is the most stable system of all if stable is what one wants. That axiom itself may be useful for hectoring hegemons, not for plebeians.
The very framing of the question in that way led Mr. Bertrand Russell, the godhead of atheism in the 20th century, to very sensibly, very logically, and very coherently - okay connivingly is a better word based on a pre-set agenda from his Fabian background - assert that a scientific society can only be stable in a police-state in the logical world government! His exact statement:
“World government could only be kept in being by force”!
Marvelous use of the intellect, logic, and rationalism. I have no use for such logic or intellect, primarily because I do not wish to live in a police-state, nor wish it upon others.
I also have no use for such rationalism because I do not wish euthanasia, population reduction, spreading black-death every generation or so, so that the white races can procreate to their hearts content while the 'useless eaters' who tend to multiply faster can be curbed – just like the senior fellow at the National Security Studies Program at Harvard's Weatherhead Center, Martin Kramer, advocating genocide in Palestine by forcibly reducing the birth rate of its “superfluous young men” as an imperative of the Zionist State's national security, or NSSM-200 advocating similar measures worldwide as a matter of US National Security imperative – war-mongering and assorted mayhem, including but not limited to the exercise of primacy and hegemony, all very rational logical conclusions given the starting axioms, to be very rationally inflicted upon the 'untermenschen' who are usually the direct beneficiaries of these marvelous thinking.
Reason in the logical service of empire is nothing new. See Bertrand Russell's Impact of Science on Society, Unwin, 1956, as well as the declassified National Security Council documents from the National Archives, to appreciate Reason in the service of empire!
My axioms however are different, the overarching one being putting reason in the service of humanity. Its corollaries are: reason in the service of happiness; reason in the service of compassion, equity, fairness, livability, and justice. Such axioms, very logically, and just as rationally, lead to very different conclusion spaces.
Why is one set of axioms better than the other? Depends on who (or which power) is defining them, what's their goal, and what's their "faith" orientation.
Furthermore, in a debate with a priest broadcast on radio, and available in a compilation of essays titled "Why I am not a Christian" - the volume by that title was available in a cheap edition printed in India, but may be found in other compilations in the West – Bertrand Russell conceded that the most correct philosophical position is agnostic. Either of the antipodes, of theism (belief in divine), or atheism (no belief in divine), is entirely faith which can neither be proved, nor disproved.
To see the sort of military precision thinking the faith of atheism, or perhaps the abuse of the faith of atheism can take one in the service of empire, just read "The Report from Iron Mountain"!
We can all come up with examples of abuse of faith in divinity as well, the most striking contemporary being Evangelical Christianity bringing on Armageddon upon the 'untermenschen' in search of their religious Zionist Rapture under tutelage from the 'god's chosen peoples'.
So omitting all abuse, and all services to empire, in any and every guise, what is left?
What is left are the axioms. And, as the article being commented to briefly notes, the same compassionate axioms, as opposed to misanthropic ones, are the underpinnings of Islam. Thank you for drawing attention to it.
The same axioms can also be the underpinnings of any system, any system that is, which puts the intellect in the service of the heart, and not hegemony. And this can be just as true of theism as atheism! The reason being, all possess the heart. And sublime love lives in it. Unless of course it belongs to the pathocratically sociopathic hectoring hegemons! While they might posses a physical heart (I seriously doubt even that), it most assuredly has no characteristics in common with the rest of ordinary humanity!
Not being a philosopher of immanent spaces but rather grounded in empiricism, the aforementioned examination I believe is sufficient response to the earlier commenter's other question:
"Can morality exist without religion?"
The commenter's third question, which was actually asked first in the list of three questions:
"Is religion right?"
is as meaningless as asking 'is atheism right?'!
It is for none other to decide than for each one for one's own-self. A person's faith is no one else's business. And a group harboring the same set of shared values, common beliefs, have every right to form their own self-governance according to principles derived from those values and beliefs if they choose to do so – so long as they do not wage wars of conquest upon others based upon those principles! Who is an atheist or agnostic to question the basic right of belief and congregation with the question: “is religion right?” Atheism is just as much a faith based 'religion', and their own godfather has already rationally conceded that point. On what basis can such a right for self-governance be denied to any group based on their own shared values, whether theist, or atheist? This is just a truism response. Even if atheism is merged with agnosticism, it does not alter that truism. (Note that: agnostic may mean any or all of: don't know about it; don't care about it; neutral on the question; can't be proved either way; and don't care to live under the jackboot of any priestly-class regardless of one's personal beliefs or lack thereof.)
The problem however is introduced, and because of which perhaps such a question does become pertinent, is hinted at by the last item in parenthesis above: when the group lives in heterogeneity with other groups of differing religion and beliefs, but must be governed by one set of laws without encroaching on anyone's rights. Whose law should prevail, whose values and legislations should determine public morality, rights, privileges? If that is the purpose behind the question "Is religion right?", then this is an implementation problem, and not a philosophical one.
And there is no conundrum because the solution is also almost a blatant truism.
If the universal axioms of justice and fairness noted above are the common ground, or can be made common ground axioms (as opposed to corporatocracy, primacy, supremacy, elitism), then there is no rational reason that such basic, universal, and commonsensical rules and values as the Ten Commandments, The Golden Rule (do unto others as you have others do unto you; and its first corollary: if it is good enough for you to do to me, it is good enough for me to do to you; and its second corollary: if it is bad for me to do to you, then it is bad for you to do to me; and its third corollary: no one shall take unfair advantage of another) cannot become the basis of common laws which govern universal common rights, the Bill of Rights ; while individual ethnic courts administer family-personal law based on the individual's specific belief system, being fully contained under the umbrella of the universal common law and consistent with it. (Note: The first and second corollaries are Noam Chomsky vintage. The third pithy corollary is the single fundamental student honor code at the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA, aka CALTECH, from which all practice of morality remarkably follows: “No member of the Caltech community shall take unfair advantage of any other member of the Caltech community.”).
As one can immediately see, it is just a matter of careful system design in the interest of the often needlessly quarrelsome people, rather than in the interest of preserving elitist privileges. It is not a matter of abstract philosophical debate, nor a matter of denigrating religion, or to subvert faith except for primacy. And it is as applicable to countering the scientific dictatorship of modernity emanating from the globalist hectoring hegemons, as that of any priestly class in any and all religions since time immemorial.
To conclude then, today it is the 'white man's burden' that is the problem. Not religion. Secular humanism is their agenda. And subverting all religions, breaking apart all traditions, breaking apart the family unit, and replacing faith as the cohesive uniting force with scientific global dictatorship which views mankind as cattle to be centrally spawned, managed, utilized, and end-of-life'd, is the endgame. Faith in something outside of our existence, in Divinity, is their greatest obstacle. And those discussing religion, or endeavoring to make it the center of focus in the middle of hegemonic conquests for world government, better start comprehending that agenda of subversive “cognitive infiltration” and pertinently contextualize their exposition. The house negro as well as the patsy apparently grow quite ubiquitously in the modernity du jour. No exponent of truth among the 'untermensch' harboring a real heart, atheist or theist, would wish to be among them. This is most pertinent for Muslims today.
Our values, our religion is under attack from all sides by highlighting the abuses and excesses which have crept into Muslim cultural practices, or attributed to us (e.g. Islamofascism), and forcing us into the discussion of religion of Islam instead (see: http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2007/12/islamofascism-zionofascism-judeofascism.html ).
Attacks on others' religions will soon follow. Rather than defend one's religion, which one can't, defend one's own-self and one's kith by minimally comprehending and unmasking modernity which is being entirely orchestrated through multiple Hegelian Dialectic. The successive “Hegelian mind fcks” is making even the most brilliant people lose perspective. The religion of Islam, as all other great religions of mankind, stands on its own. Islam needs no defending. But Muslims do!
by Zahir Ebrahim Written April 17, 2008 - Updated April 22, 2008. The abominable shared fates that unite Iran (“Bush and Iran,...
by Zahir Ebrahim Written April 26, 2008 - Revised May 2, 2008. Douglas J. Feith, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, in his Hearing...
by Zahir Ebrahim March 31, 2007: I wrote this essay as the Preface to "Prisoners of the Cave" during 2003. That was four years ago....
by Zahir Ebrahim It appears that a majority of conscionable peoples opposed to their nation's war mongering for “imperial mobilization” in...
by Zahir Ebrahim Sunday April 06, 2008. It is à propos to begin this brief observation in 2008, on a cloudy Sunday morning while...
Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites