The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

This is a discussion from the Wall of the UK Room, transplanted here so it can be kept and referred to easily.

Tags: Mythology, Rationality, Spirituality, v.

Views: 464

Replies to This Discussion

" In your opinion, all religions are a lie but that does not mean that all religious people are liars."

Sorry to tell you this, but I think it would mean that all religious people are liars (in that area).  You have perhaps been infected by our defective modern legal system which wrongly implicates intention in the commission of an offensive act, so similarly you are implicating intention in the truth or falsehood of a statement.


A liar is someone who is speaking falsely in a particular context, it does not depend on intention.  If I say "your cat is on the moon", I am a liar in that context, even tho I truly believe its true (because I've just seen what appears to be your cat on the moon, with my pocket telescope).


However, you are correct that the term liar can't be employed in that way, for 2 other reasons.

  1. We all tell falsehoods, by accident or design or in childhood, at some time or other, so the context and time period needs to be given.
  2. There are a lot of fundamentally 'unknowable' areas, so its best not to start wielding your truth/falsehood criteria in them, or it just causes a mess. The unknowable has to be left outside the strict realms of truth and falsehood.


Kinana said:

You will need to ask a Christian (or Jew or Buddhist or Hindu etc.) that question.  But from me, I would suggest you notice and understand not just the similarities but also the differences.  Then concentrate on the differences. 

In your opinion, all religions are a lie but that does not mean that all religious people are liars.  They believe what they believe and are not trying to deceive you and do not belief that they themselves are self-deluded.  Since their belief is not imagined for them it is not a struggle to ‘attack’ another belief system which, to them, is not true.

Jack Rainbow said:

I cannot figure out how to attack the ideology of islam without at the same time attacking all relion as a lie. Can someone explain how they manage to defend their belief in an Imagined Other type Christ whilst attacking a belief in an Imagined Other type islam?

Alan,

i am not sure i understand you.  a liar is someone who lies.

the dictionary definition of a lie is:

1.a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2.something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3.an inaccurate or false statement.
so a person can believe he is telling the truth but is, according to others, telling a falsehood but because of his intention is not actually lying.  Perhaps from another angle, a truth is something that is agreed upon as true/correct by one or more people!
My point to Jack was to say that just because he believes all religions are a lie does not mean that all religious people are out to intentionally deceive him.  A believer of whatever sort believes/knows differently and therefore has less of a burden to bear 'whilst attacking a belief in an Imagined Other' which is Jack's position.

Hmm, the plot thickens.

 

We can ignore meaning 2 which is figurative.

 

Then meaning 1 has 3 parts, all of which require the statement to be false, so the 'intention' is an optional extra, for other purposes.  And meaning 3 requires the statement to be inaccurate or false.  So what I say still holds, kind of, it all hinges upon the truth or falsehood of the underlying statement.

 

But you have a point about 'intention'.  Its terribly complicated and seems to involve the limits of our knowledge and reasonable doubt and the establishment of a reputation for truth and other things.  Lets just drop that topic and leave it to the philosophy professors.  Its too complicated and abstruse for here.

 

"My point to Jack was to say that just because he believes all religions are a lie does not mean that all religious people are out to intentionally deceive him."

Absolutely right, and lets give another example. I believe the Euro will crumble or split into a 2-tier system.  It hasn't happened yet, so have I just lied to Jack?  What if it never happens and the Euro survives, am I a liar then?

I think the moral of the story is that we need to be a bit more wary about using the word 'liar'.

 

P.S. I always hear alarm bells ringing when I see the word 'intention', especially after the perversion its brought to our legal system as regards 'offensive behaviour'.  So I think we should also be extra careful whenever we see the word 'intention' as well.

I can't help feeling scorn for a person who tells me they are christian without my asking, and I never have to ask, believe me, they will always tell me. I feel the same scorn when I see people wearing muslim clothes to scream to the world that they believe in a lie. As far as christians go, I can see that the pathological response of pretending a belief in an Imagined Other derives from early conditioining and or later negative experience, from weakness, low self esteem and from wilful ignorance and a terror of the truth. The truth might be, when I die I die, my experience ends. I cannot know any of that for sure because I have absolutely no evidence. The same pathology of asserting a stupid fantasy about an Imagined Other is true for muslims, but then on top of the early trauma, the lies, the pretence, is a pathological resort to violence as an experession of their suffering and consequent anger. Islam is angry. We are in the happy position of being able to tell christians to fuck right off if we don't want their pathology foisted on us, but with muslims, its not enough to just live peacefully, left alone to believe and pray or whatever it is they want to do, they have to force everyone else to join them. There is a sense of this in christianity also, but the muslim belief is infinitely more aggressive and arrogant. That's about the only difference. The beliefs themselves, however, are both equally untrue. It would be OK if a religious or spiritual person said well I wish this was true, or, I'm going to act as if god tells me to be loving and to forgive my enemies etc, as long as they did not go the whole extreme, that its all true and therefore their actions bask in the light of god's aprroval, because at that point they start forcing others to put up with their shit, doing this 'Well, as a commited christian I think children need boundaries' or if they're muslim, we get all the nonsense about women being evil temptresses and anybody who insults Allah, the god of pig  poo, must be killed.

So I hope you can now understand what I'm saying about why we have to regard all religion as a lie without needing to deconstruct everything and pick it to pieces, to count the meanings of this and the inferences of that. We have to act as if religion is a lie because we do not have any evidence that it isn't. Looking at the behaviour of those who strut it, we can see that jesus and PigPoo are the kind of dogshit we really don't need and it would be better if they just buggered off. Strike me dead if I blaspheme.

The only way for the Salvation of the West is by the Preservation and promotion of our Greco-Roman Christian Civilisation.

All of this comes not with a Christian Fundamentalism but the alliance with our original Liberal Values which have come out of our Christian Heritage. This must oppose the Left as the only alternative for the Salvation of the West.

We need a Party which parallels the Republican radicals in America. All the other parties have failed Britain.

christianity is the same dirty filthy lie as islam - the only difference is that I've been able to slap christians when they get uppity whereas the large majority of muslims who misbehave are excused because of diversity and multiculturalism. Its incredibly stupid to offer christianity as 'salvation'. christians are people who lack the courage to face reality and christianity has been the most destructive force in the UK since the Romans were seen off. Take your christian salvation and pop it back up your bottom where it came from, cretin, because I will will not tolerate your nonsense any more than I will tolerate islam.

Jonothon Boulter said:

The only way for the Salvation of the West is by the Preservation and promotion of our Greco-Roman Christian Civilisation.

All of this comes not with a Christian Fundamentalism but the alliance with our original Liberal Values which have come out of our Christian Heritage. This must oppose the Left as the only alternative for the Salvation of the West.

We need a Party which parallels the Republican radicals in America. All the other parties have failed Britain.

Jack

1. Welcome back!

2. How do you know 'christianity is the same dirty filthy lie as islam'; or if either one or both are lies?

3. Jonothon was speaking not of Christianity. per se, but of the civilisation which he sees has come from or out of the 2000 year history of Christianity, which is different than saying Christianity is true.  Do you regret and or reject 100% of this 2000 year history?

regards

Yes, i was refering to the Greco-Roman and Christian civilization which is the origin of the West and our Freedoms have come out ot this. If we reject this then we have no unifying element that all Europeans can agree upon.

When you refer to same lie as Islam are you refering to the Semitic origins?

 

 

Jonothon

Jonothon

i think Jack is basically refering to religion in general as 'the lie' with the origins of religion going back much further than semitic religions.  At least that is how i read his previous comments, e.g. 'The beliefs themselves, however, are both equally untrue.'

 

"I cannot figure out how to attack the ideology of islam without at the same time attacking all relion as a lie. Can someone explain how they manage to defend their belief in an Imagined Other type Christ whilst attacking a belief in an Imagined Other type islam?"

 

I'm hostile to religion, and I often describe myself as a buddhist.  That's because to describe myself by any of the variety of philosophies (political and metaphysical) to which I subscribe, would be met with total incomprehension or near-total miscomprehension.  I'm sure we all accept that buddhism is known as a religion.  But it is specifically a skeptical, rationalist anti-deist "religion" (that has become corrupted into a deification of the person of the buddha).

 

As for fighting islam.  It is only with the waning of mono-cultural religious beliefs in the west that islam has been able to thrive.  A couple of hundred years ago the Koran was a banned book in Britain. And as Kinana will remember from our outing at the French Institute, Mohammed was known here until the 20th century not as "the prophet mohammed" but as "the imposter mohammed".  There was no respect accorded to Mohammed or muslims until the last 100 years.  That respect has gone hand in hand with ignorance of the history and theology of islam amongst those who should know better (the academics, the clergy, the politicians).

 

One can assault islam from the ground up, or the top down.  To assault from the ground up, one learns the history of islam, the history of jihad, the core principles of islam.  And one points them out to anyone who will listen.  It is quite remarkable the number of informed comments one finds in response to articles on mainstream media websites.  The great awakening has been going on for some years.  Look on Amazon at the number of critical works on islam published in English in the last 10 years.  I was in a public library of a muslim enclave, and was happy to see that probably the most appealing-looking books on display were those that were critical of islam.  The book on sharia law that I'd gone to consult had been stolen (I don't know if that's good or bad).

 

No matter how the PC/MC media tries to manipulate things, their actions will backfire.  When they report on 4 men from Birmingham who've been arrested on terrorist charges, buf don't give their names or their religion, they think they are covering up.  But all that happens is that the public read between the lines, and conclude not only that they are muslims, but that the media is involved in a cover-up.

 

At the more abstract level of attack, Alan is right to point out his "ready reckoner" of logical arguments.  He's focused almost all his energy on 4F and the high-level form of attack.

 

To me there is a key factual/moral issue that I focus on in order to lay my assault on islam from the ground up.  Slavery - legal within sharia law, but condemned by the christian church within 400 years of the advent of christianity.  From the inception of islam, Mohammed took slaves.  And even after the invention of the atomic bomb, 1 in 20 of the people in Arabia was a slave (1950).  Throughout the entire history of islam, it was only through western (judaeo-christian) influence that muslim countries gave up slavery.  And islam is itself a form of slavery - many islamic texts refer to muslims as "the slaves of Allah".  Islam is all about enslaving muslims to islam, or enslaving non-muslims to muslims.

 

If everyone knew the role of slavery in islam then there would be far less tolerance of islam and far less meek acceptance of sharia law.  Including from muslims.  Every time sharia law is brought up, one can point out its legitimation of slavery.  Every time the perfect example of Mohammed is brought up, one can point out he was a slave-monger.

 

Muslims have been lied to and misled about their own religion's theological principles and history.  When I pointed out to a room full of fundamentalists that slavery was legal under sharia law, they gasped and denied it.  

 

To me this is the achilles heel of islam in the west.  When our museum exhibitions about slavery actually bracket the Atlantic slave trade with explanations about the preceding 700 years of islamic slaving, and when they provide details about the islamic slaving going on in still in the 20th century, and Britain's 150 year effort to stamp out islamic slaving from the early 19th century we will have beaten back the spread of islam.

 

I believe that the best way to capture the interest of an interlocutor is by using imagery and narratives that resonate powerfully with them and their politics and morality.  Slavery is I think something that is so abhorrent to modern westerners that it is the most powerful tool I can think of for persuading people of the evil of islam.

 

The truth or falsity of religious belief does not come into it.  Any ideology that justifies slavery is going to seem wrong to almost everyone in the west.  If someone admits to the history of islamic slaving, and declares that they still advocate sharia law even though it legalises slavery, then they are so far beyond the pale there is unlikely to be any grounds on which one can reason with them.  

Jack, what i think your saying is that the Monotheistic religions are the problem ie. Judaism, Christianity  and Islam?

 

Showing that Islam has bad sides like Slavery dosnt mean that theologically its wrong. We have to look at specific parts and then dissect. I think for the West to regain its Faustian spirit we need to dissect our enemies ideas and failures. I dont believe that a New Crusade for Jerusalem will be of use in the Present age.

 

 

Hello jack,

 

How wonderfull fo have you back. I thought you,d left and took your ball with you, or was it just you,d threatened to leave if we didn,t all dhimmi down and agree with you. I,m not sure. Any way good to see you and your ball back.

 

I see your Islamic studys are going well and you've learn,t how  great it is to give christianity a good slagging off. Calling christians cretins  As well as a giving them good slap, proves your conversion is going well...

 

 Of cause this can,t work the other way can it. Tommy Must be chastised for giving someone who insulted him a slap, while of cause you should be applauded for giving christians a good slap. (when they get uppity).  A case of double standards. Very Islamic. Or Troll like.

Yes wellcome back jack.  

 

RSS

Monitor this Page

You don't have to be a member of 4F to follow any room or topic! Just fill in on any page you like.

Privacy & Unsubscribe respected

Muslim Terrorism Count

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Mission Overview

Most Western societies are based on Secular Democracy, which itself is based on the concept that the open marketplace of ideas leads to the optimum government. Whilst that model has been very successful, it has defects. The 4 Freedoms address 4 of the principal vulnerabilities, and gives corrections to them. 

At the moment, one of the main actors exploiting these defects, is Islam, so this site pays particular attention to that threat.

Islam, operating at the micro and macro levels, is unstoppable by individuals, hence: "It takes a nation to protect the nation". There is not enough time to fight all its attacks, nor to read them nor even to record them. So the members of 4F try to curate a representative subset of these events.

We need to capture this information before it is removed.  The site already contains sufficient information to cover most issues, but our members add further updates when possible.

We hope that free nations will wake up to stop the threat, and force the separation of (Islamic) Church and State. This will also allow moderate Muslims to escape from their totalitarian political system.

The 4 Freedoms

These 4 freedoms are designed to close 4 vulnerabilities in Secular Democracy, by making them SP or Self-Protecting (see Hobbes's first law of nature). But Democracy also requires - in addition to the standard divisions of Executive, Legislature & Judiciary - a fourth body, Protector of the Open Society (POS), to monitor all its vulnerabilities (see also Popper). 
1. SP Freedom of Speech
Any speech is allowed - except that advocating the end of these freedoms
2. SP Freedom of Election
Any party is allowed - except one advocating the end of these freedoms
3. SP Freedom from Voter Importation
Immigration is allowed - except where that changes the political demography (this is electoral fraud)
4. SP Freedom from Debt
The Central Bank is allowed to create debt - except where that debt burden can pass across a generation (25 years).

An additional Freedom from Religion is deducible if the law is applied equally to everyone:

  • Religious and cultural activities are exempt from legal oversight except where they intrude into the public sphere (Res Publica)"

© 2018   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service