[extropy-chat] Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the middle ages

[Joseph Bloch]

http://www.sca.org


Mehran wrote:

>Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the middle ages
>
>The recent events which followed the publication of caricatures of Mohamed
>in a Danish paper, with the burning of embassies in Arab countries, death
>threats against the caricaturists and journalists etc indicate the extent
>of the danger that the basic fundamental freedom in the west is in. However
>we mustn't forget that this freedom was only acquired after many years of
>struggle against the dominant religion of Christianity. Though today,
>anyone can caricature Jesus, god or the pope in modern countries without
>any danger, only a few hundred years ago anyone daring such a thing would
>have risked being burnt alive at the stake.
>
>The muslim world still lives in a medieval culture where any lack of
>respect, even humorous, against religion is not tolerated.
>
>That these countries don't respect human rights on their own territory and
>freedom of expression in their own papers is condemnable, and even though
>we should struggle to help improve this situation, that is their own
>internal problem.
>
>But what is totally unacceptable is when they dare to attack the freedom of
>modern countries. They can do what they want in their own countries, but
>please respect the freedom so carefully acquired over the centuries in
>western countries, especially the right to atheism, the right to blaspheme
>and the right to laugh at anything.
>
>Western countries must protect these fundamental rights without compromise,
>and all the more reason to do so when the enemies of freedom brandish death
>threats and threaten violence. It is unacceptable to concede to any threats
>of violence.
>
>Some Islamic countries are even considering to request the UN to vote for
>laws forbidding any texts of drawings lacking religious respect.
>
>Some westerners even try to justify these requests by equating these
>caricatures to incitement to racial or religious hatred, comparing them to
>the anti-semite drawings that were published in German papers during the
>rise of nazi-ism.
>
>But the difference between the two stands out large and clear: the
>anti-semite drawings really did incite hatred towards Jews through their
>texts and propagated false information such as claiming that the Jews were
>pillaging the German economy, or sacrificing children. They did not just
>limit themselves to caricaturing a prophet or a god.
>
>In the name of freedom of expression, so long as they don't explicitly
>incite violence or racial and religious hate, which of course should be
>forbidden, any other drawing and caricature which is purely humorous should
>be allowed, whatever the subject and whoever their target.
>
>No subject should be taboo or prohibited, otherwise freedom of expression
>ceases to exist and the demon of religious or political censorship rears
>its ugly head. For sure any explicit incitement to hatred or violence
>against any religion or ethnic group should be severely punished by law,
>but the right to laugh, and to laugh at anything without exception should
>not be touched.
>
>But the problem that this affair raises is in fact much deeper and serious
>than that. We are presently seeing what I had prophesised a couple of
>decades ago in one of my texts where I was warning the western world to get
>ready to defend its fundamental rights against the influence of other
>countries still living in the middle ages.
>
>What we have is the confrontation of two civilisations: a modern and
>liberated one clashing with another one trailing behind by a couple of
>centuries due to lack of education and science, still stuck in
>superstitions, under the grip of primitive beliefs and which has not yet
>accomplished the fundamental step of separating church and state.
>
>These two civilisations are now trying to impose their "values" on each
>other. The confrontation of these two value systems is irresolvable,
>especially when the less advanced one has such tenacious paradigms that
>they are fanaticising to the extreme and which prevents them from seeing
>the truth.
>
>But the greatest danger is if the modern world makes concessions to the
>primitive one. That will be a victory of obscurantism over science and
>freedom.
>
>It is the less advanced society which must progress and not the other way
>round. On the contrary, the western world must continue to accelerate its
>progressive reforms which allow it to completely destroy the last
>puritanical and conventional traces inherited from the oppressive
>judeo-christian traditions. Among other things would be the acceptance of
>cloning, stem-cells and genetically modified organisms.
>
>If muslims refuse to eat pork, that is their right, but they don't have the
>right to impose this dietary regime on the rest of the world. That they
>refuse to represent their prophet Mohamed is also their right, but neither
>should they impose this rule on non muslims.
>
>And if the modern world accepted to limit its own freedom of expression to
>placate the sensitivities of muslims, then they are entering the slippery
>slope of a return back to the dark ages.
>
>Not only should the western world refuse to be influenced by the primitive
>world, but they must do all they can via the promotion of education and use
>of modern medias such as satellite TV or the internet, to help the
>primitive societies to liberate themselves from the yoke of their
>retrograde religion and to realise a true separation of their church and
>state which western nations enjoy today.
>
>And the modern world should concede none of its liberties and protect
>itself from the threats of violence perpetrated by the fanatics.
>
>Though the Raelian philosophy promotes absolute non violence, it also
>promotes the right to legitimate self-defence, if necessary by force, but a
>reasonable force aimed at reducing their attackers to powerlessness rather
>than killing them.
>
>And though we condemn all military attacks, such as the illegal invasions
>of Afghanistan and Iraq by the US, that does not mean that we recommend
>total inaction in the face of criminal cowardice which would allow medieval
>forces to destroy the freedom of the modern world and murder its citizens.
>
>The western world should develop weapons to specifically protect itself
>from fanatical attacks of those who don't tolerate our rights and freedom.
>
>It is important to compare the basic differences of these two clashing
>societies in order to understand the differences and bad faith that these
>defenders of medieval cultures use to seduce us into taking a step
>backwards. Here are a few examples out of many:
>
>The right to apostatise:
>In the western countries, in accordance with human rights, people are free
>to apostatise from their religion, either to convert to another or just to
>become atheist and renounce all belief in a god. But in most Islamic
>countries, in total disregard to these human rights, such apostasy is
>illegal and the law can condemn anyone to death if they apostatise from the
>Islamic religion.
>
>The right to blaspheme:
>In western countries, people are free to blaspheme. In the Islamic
>countries the law can heavily condemn someone for this.
>
>The right of women:
>In western countries, the law on gender equality enshrines equal rights for
>women as for men on all levels.
>In Islamic countries, women are considered inferior, it is legal to beat
>them, they must wear the veil, or even worse the Burka, they are denied
>access to education and are not allowed to drive cars, whereas men are
>exempt from such restrictions.
>Men can practice polygamy (have several wives) whereas women cannot
>practice polyandry (have several husbands).
>Women are never considered major and depend always on the authority of
>either their father, husband or brother.
>Every year thousands of women are legally murdered with impunity by male
>members of their own family in what is called "crimes of honour".
>
>Gay rights:
>In western countries, homosexuals enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals
>and can even legally marry.
>In Islamic countries, to be homosexual means heavy prison sentences or even
>a sentence of death.
>
>Sexual mutilation:
>In western countries all sexual mutilation is illegal, whereas in Islamic
>countries, excision (cutting off the clitoris) is practiced on millions of
>little girls every year, as well as circumcision on boys.
>
>The list is almost endless.
>
>Each one of these situations is intolerable and constitutes a breach of
>human rights. But what is all the more shocking is that muslims wish to
>impose these unilaterally on our modern societies.
>
>For example they demand the right to build mosques in the west and to be
>allowed unlimited proselytism aimed at converting as many people as
>possible - while in the west citizens are allowed to convert to islam - and
>yet in Islamic countries the construction of non Islamic churches is
>prohibited and anyone seeking to proselytise in the name of any religion
>other than islam will be condemned to a very heavy prison sentence. And
>anyone who tries to apostatise from islam or converts to another religion
>can be condemned to death. Double standards.
>
>Another example: muslims demand the right to wear the Islamic veil in
>western schools and can freely carry it anytime in public. But if a western
>woman visits an Islamic country, she has to cover her hair with an Islamic
>scarf and of course wearing a miniskirt would be under pain of death.
>Again, double standards.
>
>Human rights are very clear on both of these subjects: they guarantee
>religious freedom, the right to convert, the right to proselytise. But this
>must be reciprocal: if muslims wish to enjoy freedom and rights in western
>countries guaranteed by the most beautiful fruit produced by the modern
>world: Human Rights, then they too must imperatively respect them in their
>own countries.
>
>As long as total reciprocity is not respected, muslims should not be
>allowed to enjoy the rights and freedoms of western countries that they
>deny to visitors in their own countries. That means that Islamic
>proselytism should be forbidden in the west as long as the proselytism of
>other religions, or of atheism is not legalised in Islamic countries. And
>the wearing of the veil or burka should be forbidden in the west as long as
>women are not allowed to walk about with their head naked and in
>mini-skirts in Islamic countries. In that way, there will be no double
>standards.
>
>The defence of values of modern countries, especially their rights so
>preciously cumulated over the ages is essential particularly when they are
>under attack by fanatics who's religious books teach hate, crime and
>violence against those who are not faithful to their religion.
>
>The Koran is very clear, it says in black and white:
>"Kill the idolaters wherever you can find them, capture them, lay siege to
>them, and ambush them. But if they convert, if they give money.., then
>leave them in peace because Allah forgives and takes pity on them" Koran
>IX. 5.
>
>Islam also officially encourages racism and discrimination:
>"Oh believers, do not befriend any Jew or Christian, because they are their
>own allies. He who befriends them will become like them and god will not be
>a guide for such a pervert" Koran V. 51.
>
>Islamic sexism and the encouragement to their family violence also stems
>from their "sacred writings":
>"Men are superior to women thanks to the qualities that god gave to men to
>raise them above women. Reprimand those women who you fear might not obey
>you, banish them to separate beds and beat them" Koran IV. 34.
>
>Even the life of the prophet Mohamed is considered exemplary and sacred
>even though he was a pillager of caravans, or that he married Aicha when
>she was still a little girl of only 9 years old as the writings relate. In
>modern countries, to sleep with a 9 year old is called paedophilia. And
>don't excuse it by claiming that it was common at the time. An act of
>pedophilia always has and always will be a criminal act. Muslims cannot
>consider Mohamed as a model of perfection and infallibility otherwise they
>approve of pedophilia.
>
>If the sacred books of Islam openly preach the murder of infidels, that is
>to say anyone who is not a muslim or is atheist, then we, who live in the
>west are all legitimate targets for them. The only way out of this massacre
>is to convert to islam and that is what they officially announce. In fact
>the Koran clearly states that muslims should convert the whole planet to
>islam and kill all those who refuse this conversion. It is high time for
>the free world to become aware of this reality taught by 1.3 billion
>muslims, that is to say about a quarter of the world population.
>
>Some people claim that that only fanatics interpret the Koran in this way
>and that the majority of muslims interpret it in a more tolerant way and
>don't apply such outdated rules. That is possible, but nevertheless, it is
>the fanatics who at any opportunity drag the rest of the muslim world, even
>the more tolerant, back to the "righteous path" by obliging them to apply
>in full what is called the "word of god".
>
>And every day, millions of young muslims around the world go to Koran
>school which continue to teach these incitations to hatred and crime. For
>sure they are not taught to interpret with tolerance or look at the larger
>picture. Since it is the word of god transmitted by the prophet, such a
>word by definition cannot be interpreted in a lighter way, it has to be
>applied in its integrality. What is written is written.
>
>The only solution to the problem is to prohibit any religion which teaches
>violence and racial, religious or ethnic hate. We would never accept any
>political party which promotes such a policy, it would be immediately
>forbidden. So why accept it from a religion which conditions the behaviour
>of the young generation far more than a political party does?
>
>Therefore we should forbid islam as long as it continues to teach such
>illegal horrors around the world. The only way that islam could escape such
>a prohibition would be if its directors accept to censure its religious
>texts and remove the passages which incite to crime. In that way, muslims
>will prove their good faith and be able to join the international community
>where only those religions which incite tolerance will be able to live in
>harmony and mutual respect.
>
>The UN must immediately initiate an international committee to censure
>religious writings (all religious writings) to ensure they conform to human
>rights and to once and for all remove all the passages which infringe upon
>them.
>
>As long as that is not done, islam should be 
>declared illegal in western countries and Islamic 
>schools and places of such cult where these 
>abominations are taught every day, should be 
>forbidden as the breeding grounds of the terrorists and criminals of
>tomorrow
>
>
>The modern and free world must protect its freedom, if necessary by force,
>but once again with the least violent force to ensure the legitimate
>defence of its values.
>
>The scientific advance enjoyed by the west allows it to protect itself
>militarily and in a most non violent way from the fanatics who wish to
>bring it back to the middle ages. This advance should be maintained so that
>even if the Islamic fundamentalists largely outnumber the western
>population, they remain incapable of presenting a threat to the modern
>world.
>
>A long time ago, islam already invaded spain and a part of france before
>being pushed back militarily, which shows that the west is not the only one
>guilty of invading sovereign states such as Afghanistan or Iraq. If Islamic
>fundamentalists had the means technologically and militarily, there is no
>shadow of a doubt that they would invade the western world today and try
>and exterminate all those who don't convert to Islam.
>
>And this they would do using a list of false pretences: because the western
>world had previously colonised the muslim world which left them with a
>desire for vengeance, because they think that the western world pillaged
>their oil riches, because they resent the western world for having stolen
>their Palestinian territories to create the state of Israel, because they
>are occupying Afghanistan and Iraq, etc, but all these are just false
>excuses: the truth is that their religion teaches them to convert the whole
>planet and exterminate all those who refuse to convert, the infidels and
>the atheists as their invasion of some parts of Europe a few centuries ago
>has already proved.
>
>This philosophy of world dominance to create a "kingdom of god"  on earth
>is what is the most dangerous. And the western world cannot accept that
>every day millions of young children are conditioned to accept this vision
>of the future.
>
>The violent manifestations following the caricatures of a prophet
>constitute just one little detail which reveals another danger. That of our
>own modern values and freedom being destroyed by a domination-seeking and
>intolerant people, and ourselves being dragged back to the middle ages.
>
>For these reason, modern societies should protect their values and
>fundamental rights, without making the slightest concession, if necessary
>by the use of force, arming themselves by developing new technologies so as
>to preserve sufficient advance to remain invincible, in the face of all the
>primitive and obscurantist forces of the planet.
>
>RAEL
>
>www.rael.org
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
>  
>