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

[Samantha Atkins]

What the heck does this mean?  Do you personally know some aliens?   
Got any proof?

Or is this another dreary bit of religious Witnessing?    How the  
heck is this different from "I am PROUD to be an utter  nutter!  It  
has changed my life!"

I have no trouble with the fact that believing all matter of such  
things can lead to or be associated with some personal transformation  
some of the time.   But this says much about human psychology and  
nothing about the validity of the beliefs claimed.

- s

On Feb 8, 2006, at 6:52 PM, Mehran wrote:

> Yes, I am a proud Raelian for 15 years and I know RAEL personally  
> for that
> long...
>
> LOVE
> Mehran
> www.rael.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mehran [mailto:mehranraeli at comcast.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 9:42 PM
> To: 'extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org'
> Subject: Re: Protect ourselves to prevent a return to the middle ages
>
>
>
> Just to clarify, this text was written by RAEL
>
> www.rael.org
>
> - Mehran
>
>
>
>
> February 8th, 2006
> 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 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