timeimmortal

The common statistic one hears tossed about is that humans are about 98% similar, at a genetic level, to chimpanzees.

Turns out that isn’t quite accurate.

First, the 98% figure is probably overstated. An article in Science puts the actual figure at 94%. (Jon Cohen, “Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%, June 29, 2007). But even these figures are only measuring about 2% of our total genetic makeup — that is, those genes that code for proteins, the building blocks of our physical bodies and functions.

The vast majority of our DNA, known as “non-coding DNA” — sometimes called “junk DNA” because it was once thought not to have function — is very different in humans from most non-coding genes found in chimps and other apes. However, recent research has found that, contrary to previous belief, this repetitive DNA isn’t “junk” after all, but has distinct purposes.

Research continues as to the exact nature and functions of non-coding genes, but given the wide differences between human and ape non-coding DNA, even if the purported 98% genetic similarity to coding DNA is true, it is actually only 98% of a much smaller percentage of our total genetic makeup, perhaps as low as 98% of 2%!

This isn’t really news, given that “more than a year ago” date on the referenced article, but it’s interesting all the same. It’s also not really a shot against e.g. the theory of evolution, although I’m sure that more than a few of my misguided Young Earth Creationist brothers and sisters in Christ will attempt to make it into something like that (which would be dishonest of them to do, and a pity).

That said, it is a bit of a shot in the arm to those silly people in Europe — was that Spain that it happened in? — who wanted to confer human rights onto great apes, based on their genetic similarity to humans.

Count Roland, who appears to be off on a whirlwind European vacation, writes in with a comment on this article concerning the two English schoolboys who were punished for refusing to pray to Allah as part of being taught about Islam.

… we ‘enlightened’ Westerners were not allowed (philosophically) to have prayer in our schools (on pain of offending someone)? But yes, praise for those boys who show sterner stuff than the majority of adults in our decadent, opthalmoskeptic (navel gazing)*, arrogant culture which presumes its superiority to be self evident (as ‘pluralist’) in the face of contrarian cultural groups by being entirely self effacing. Wow, that guy must have filled my wine glass more than I remember to have such a runon sentence with so many prepositional connectors which may be unclear to those who are not in my slightly inebriated yet philosophically lingo aware mind…YIP. Everything in the Czech folklore show I just watched ended with ‘yip’.

By the way, it is interesting to note the number of non-Caucasian (Afro-Arab) people in my travels thus far in central Europe (and the cheap alcohol…) as well as the number of ‘Cathedral concert halls’ to support the various Churches’ continued existence.

Well, good Count, do raise a glass of Czech wine for yours truly, and for his good wife (who hath given up even the slightest sip of wine during her pregnancy)!

To distill what the good Count has said, he questions why the children were even exposed to prayer in school in the first place, since in our decadent, pluralist, “see no evil” society it is counted as received wisdom that never shall Religion and education be blended in any way, shape, or form.

Perhaps this wisdom only applies to Christianity, however. God fobid we should teach kids about Jesus, regardless of whether one views him as the Son of God or as a man who taught a great number of nice things. But by all means, full speed ahead…let us teach the kids all we can of the paedophile prophet and his idolatrous permutation (read: perversion) of the idea of the Judeo-Christian deity!

* ‘opthalmoskeptic’ — this is a funny turn of phrase, and one which I intend to crib for future use!

All kudos to the Cat for getting a mention in the National Post. And such praising words, too!

[Wahida Valiante] compared Mark Steyn, the author of the Maclean’s article in question, titled The Future Belongs to Islam, to James Keegstra, an Alberta high school teacher who taught and tested his students on how Jews “created the Holocaust to gain sympathy.”

“They basically talk about the same theories,” she said. “This is not a civil dialogue.”

This isn’t BCF’s honourable mention, but it’s worth pausing here to reflect on what Wahida Valiante has to say: Mark Steyn’s quotations of Islamic community leaders saying — openly! — that Islam will dominate Europe are entirely the same thing as skepticism about the Nazi extermination of the Jews.

I can totally see the similarity.

She said that, in Germany, long before the Holocaust, “it was the words that set the stage for what happened later on…. We may end up with the same fate, and that is at the heart of why [the complainants] wanted to take this on.”

Yes, words were what really caused things to happen in Nazi Germany. Not the fact that Jews were legally denied property rights. Not the fact that Jews were denied the legal right to self-defence. Not the fact that the Jews were denied the right to move about freely, and ultimately to live and thrive as persons in the Reich. None of those things really caused problems — it was words.

Would the Reader be surprised to learn that, just prior to the Nazis taking power, the Weimar Republic had a very comprehensive body of anti-hate legislation? Is it perhaps possible that the Nazi reality became possible in part because the Weimar Republic muzzled freedom of expression?

Anyhow, on to BCF’s mention.

Both she and Ms. [Pearl Eliadis] had harsh words for the growing contingent of bloggers who lambaste the commissions, and have been invigorated by the prominence of the Maclean’s complaints.

Ms. Eliadis singled out one in particular, blazingcatfur.blogspot.com, as “poisonous” for referring to her panel at the conference as a “Texas cage match.”

She said it was evidence of the “appalling tone” that is “illustrative of how badly this debate has gone.”

Yeah, that’s poisonous talk, all right. A “Texas cage match” indeed…of course, perhaps for a lefty, any mention of Texas can be considered “poisonous”?

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Ezra Levant has some details on his blog regarding the Conservative government of Canada’s apparent non-concern over the proposed internal review of/by the CHRC.

I don’t think that the folks in the bunker at the CHRC understand the Conservative government at all, and the Prime Minister in particular. I think that of all the political chess moves they could have made, this stunt was perhaps the most foolish and counter-productive they could have chosen.

Until now, they simply stonewalled, brazening it out, denying any wrongdoing whatsoever, even denying the bald facts as revealed in various hearings, under oath. That’s not particularly unusual for decaying bureaucracies.

But [Jennifer Lynch]’s move was different: it was insubordination. It was meddling with politics — meddling with MPs’ turf. In particular, the thought that a third-tier government appointee like Lynch would presume to review her own political mandate, and presume to commission a report on what her job should be — instead of doing the job she was given — is exactly the thing that irritates the PMO.

I am reminded of a story from the first few weeks of ’s tenure as Prime Minister. There had been an election in Belarus, and it was rigged. Harper wanted to issue a critical statement, and he ordered that it be done. The bureaucrats from the Department of Foreign Affairs nodded, but sent back a mealy-mouthed press release about “monitoring the situation”. Harper was frustrated that he was being ignored, so he asked again for a critical release to be drafted. Again, the crats came back with pablum. Enough was enough: Harper literally hand-wrote a scorching press release, and ordered it sent out. “I am shocked that a dictatorial and abusive regime, such as this one, can continue to exist in today’s Europe,” he wrote.

…What’s the point? The point is that Harper probably didn’t care a lot about Belarus. He just wanted a critical release to be issued. But the DFAIT bureaucrats wanted to “Yes, Minister” him. All of a sudden, he cared very much about Belarus. Sure, it was about democracy in an Eastern European country. But it was also about democracy in Canada: who was running the government — him or unelected civil servants? It was their own belligerence that made Harper up the ante.

One is hopeful that the government will look askance at the proposed internal review of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and pursue its own review instead, and then more passionately. It’s high time that yet another batch of unelected civil servants be educated about who is, and who is not, running this country.

Someone once told me that he felt entitled to live in a country governed by some European convention on human rights.

He’s welcome to it, for what little it seems to be worth.

…Whereas weblogs are an increasingly common medium for self-expression by media professionals as well as private persons, the status of their authors and publishers, including their legal status, is neither determined nor made clear to the readers of the weblogs, causing uncertainties regarding impartiality, reliability, source protection, applicability of ethical codes and the assignment of liability in the event of lawsuits,…

[The European Parliament] suggests clarifying the status, legal or otherwise, of weblogs and encourages their voluntary labelling according to the professional and financial responsibilities and interests of their authors and publishers; …

Translation: “reasonable” limitations on freedom of expression, a fundamental human right. And likely, that’s just the beginning…because what the government giveth in legislation, the government can taketh away in legislation.

Remind me why we sent young men to die in the cause of Europe’s liberation…twice?

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

muslimperson — who I am beginning to suspect might just be Mitra Kermani herself — writes in again to follow-up on my last response to him/her.

As before, O Reader, it is a lengthy post, rambling and incoherent in many parts, and chock full of poor grammar and spelling errors. But hey — this arrived in my mailbox this morning, and was really too good not to share.

As before, I’ll throw in little responses where I feel are appropriate. This will break up the text somewhat, and I do apologize. Also, please note that because Ms. Kermani defames, at various points, certain individuals and/or companies, I have removed some bits of the text where appropriate. I have tried to minimize the disruptive effect of such redaction, but obviously I couldn’t keep everything.

Thirdly, for reference and further enjoyment, I observe that Blazing Cat Fur is getting comments on an article that look and “sound” eerily similar to the text of the correspondence below.

http://www.timeimmortal.net/tag/mitra-kermani/ :

Writer and owner of time immortal wrote his opinion as below:

“I’m actually going to stop here for a minute and remark that the stories of Mitra Kermani harassing people — at least by phone — can be verified by the fact that she harassed other bloggers who reported on her story, and did so multiple times.

Also, I observe that Mitra Kermani herself admitted to “aggressively talking to [Loblaw's]” (which is a polite way of saying she lost her cool, methinks). She also admitted to threatening one executive of the company by saying she would “cut his tail off and shoot him in the head.” She later attempted to excuse this behavior by dismissing the phrase as “an old Iranian expression, not an actual threat,” but at the end of the day she told a man she was going to shoot him in the head.

…As to whether it is true, there is no certainty, and Ms. Kermani denies the act. But is it possible she is the liar? Of course.

…The second is that if one should not believe what the National Post has had to say about this story, whom should one believe? What reason does the National Post have to risk a lawsuit from Loblaw’s by inventing — or even misrepresenting — such a scenario? “

Just type Mitra Kermani…since April 11, 2008 in Yahoo and Google and see how many bloggs wrote copy of National Post and how many email of harassment may Mitra Kermani received at least 89 pages this is proof bloggs and national post involve with no clue of story of 3 years court that can not find final solution of us to interfere and harass Mitra Kermani and judge her as this blogss by lable her include “liar” as we can see writer and owner of Time Immortal wrote his opinion that Mitra Kermani harass and she is liar — which she is not that proof one national post can brain wash all of you to blind the facts so simple and that is power of pen Muslim fight it by using power of human right commission to stop blogger to do so this will endanger security of Muslim without public know the real story

The fact that the original National Post — actually, the story was in the Financial Post, a subsidiary of the National Post — article was cited on multiple blogs is true. Equally, however, it is true that this fact of multiple citations does not tell us the first thing about whether the article in the Post is actually true or not.

muslimperson obviously believes that the article is a pack of lies, but has not yet provided convincing evidence or reasoning in support of this claim. Personally, I don’t think it makes sense for the National Post to invent, out of whole cloth, the story it ran about Mitra Kermani, because in so doing they would be exposing themselves not only to a libel lawsuit from Ms. Kermani, but also a lawsuit from Loblaw’s.

For the second time now, muslimperson has alluded to a court history (presumably one backed up by transcripts of proceedings), and for the second time no actual examples of evidence have been provided — not even a link to a scan of a transcript page.

What facts are before us, then, are what has been gleaned from the newspapers. Those facts include allegations that Mitra Kermani has engaged in threatening and harassing behaviour, and that she herself admitted to “aggressive” behaviour and to uttering the threat to shoot a Loblaws executive in the head. If that is us being “blinded” by the media, then so be it — at least we are blinded, in part, by Mitra Kermani’s own admissions.

One interesting note is how muslimperson hints at some kind of Islamic…organized effort to fight against such things using the human rights commissions in Canada.

As has been said, in regard to the current brouhaha happening before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, this is exactly the wrong tactic with which to fight perceived bias or bigotry against Muslims: the fact that Muslims are visibly attempting to censor Canadian publications will do more to stoke anti-Islamic sentiment amongst the Canadian populace than any number of articles, true or false, about people like Mitra Kermani.

If Ms. Kermani really wants to command respect, she needs to stop her “aggressive” discussions with Loblaws and move on to other business opportunities — it’s that simple.

As matter of fact [someone] went to police copy of police report is in civil court you must go to civil court in person and ask the copy and read the material and you will that as police report copied attached in Mitra Kermani defence in civil court in University ave Toronto civil court filing proof is that: [someone] said to police Mitra Kermani is “international terrorist” on July 16, 2005 and police finger print Mitra Kermani later Mitra kermani used after criminal harassment was dropped and no evidence proof that allegation to bring tort of defamation against Lobalw to let lied to police to won their civil claim on year 2005.

Those claims are all well and good, but as I don’t live in Toronto, I highly doubt I’ll be making any personal appearance at the civil court building in T.O.

Now, if muslimperson wants to go to the courts building, obtain the documents, scan them in, and post them online for us to see, I will be the first one to link to this evidence exonerating Mitra Kermani — that’s only fair.

Strangely, though, I doubt both that muslimperson would be so accommodating or reasonable, and that Ms. Kermani would be exonerated by the documents in question.

[someone] was scored by [someone] Jewish lawyer…who said that and also [someone] copy from police report said: the sound was “sharp the knife” probably cell phone of [someone] has camera show other side knife as well that still Army not create that camera yet see other party cell phone has knife or not!! to beat to some thing hard to it!!

Ah, there we go: JOOOOOOOOOS!

I do agree that, technically, nobody saw what Mitra Kermani was banging against whatever else. At least muslimperson is now more or less admitting that Ms. Kermani was hammering something against something else.

Having said that, I’ve worked in few kitchens in my day, and I will observe that the sound of a blade contacting a hard surface is fairly unique, and not difficult for one who is familiar with it to identify.

These two allegation with escort of biggest..name lawyer…was enough to Mitra Kermani get jailed for so long since Mitra Kermani is Muslim and named to next police station to [somewhere] you just imagine You are police office and you know your big neighbour…and one big executive come to station with…lawyer and saying the Muslim woman said these three things: Mitra Kermani said that she plan to attack [somewhere] and she is international terrorist and she is sharp the knife what you do if you are police office who arrest Mitra Kermani ? Then [someone] sending more than 10 affidavits to court to get any label of criminal to Mitra Kermani what you do if you are police officer?

The question is: what do I do if I am the police officer?

The answer is: my job.

Notice that a bait-and-switch has happened here: before, we were told by muslimperson that Mitra Kermani had not been convicted. This is likely still true (an arrest is not the same as a criminal conviction), but now the admission has come out that she was at least arrested and detained in a cell for some length of time.

The fact of the matter is, the police have a responsibility to investigate every allegation of a threat — especially a violent threat — that is reported to them. It would be negligent to do otherwise. And so when anyone brings forth just such an allegation, there is only one proper response for the police: investigate the allegation and, if necessary, make an arrest.

In other words: they do their job.

The police was act may not smart arrest Mitra he was smart later never signed the final papers to crown when the time came that police officer wsant to see other parties evidence and witness nobody ready to see the police give more information and police sent material with no signature means what ? no witness or victim except [someone] and [someone] available and both said after we do not want to lay charge for Mitr Kermani if you smart police officer you know something wrong!!

I might point out to the Reader that there are many reasons why one might choose not to press charges against another. Perhaps doing so in this case would have hurt a civil court action against Ms. Kermani, either at the time or at a later date, and perhaps this was the more important consideration. The point is that there’s plenty of reasons to drop charges, if in fact any were even filed.

Later police couldn’t find any label or tape proof all shoot the head to any head

In conclusion above it was [others] is guilty to lied to police and police did charged and drop criminal harassment nobody no evidence support that But evidence [someone] went to police used in civil for tort of defamation to [someone] need punitive damage to Mitra Kermani play with her repetition she live her for more than 25 years with no even one parking ticket violation to has criminal record!!

If police can not proof guilt for mitra this is better blog stop harass Mitra Kermani since this is Mitra Kermani told [someone] she plan to asked this is against security and safety of Mitra Krmani that [someone let someone] talk about Mitra kermani to national post is proof they plan to put her in more danger!!

It’s all well and good that Ms. Kermani lived for 25 years without any kind of criminal or bylaw violation to her name, O Reader. Equally, it only takes one episode to change that record forever.

At any rate, Mitra Kermani herself admitted to uttering the threat to shoot a Loblaw’s executive in the head, dismissing it as an old Iranian saying. Maybe it is an old saying, but she did say it, and then in anger. It was taken as a threat, and on the surface it sounds like a threat. How, when one is dealing with an angry person over the phone, is one supposed to know a violent saying from a violent threat?

Next: the cut the heat and shoot the head was example for snake used for this two groups:

On June 24, 2005 [someone] went to police said Mitra Kermani plan to shoot my head when the police said why you scare of her he said [some people] plan to cut only source of income of Mitra and when she get bankrupt she will come and kill me!! Police said [someone] scared of what he heard from [others] forced him to do or may he is involved just come and say that is not me is others!! We could not tell since he did not like to come to testify what or who or which boss told or order him to cut Misom halal food we know it was [a bunch of people] they are the most criminal hate crime…

I again point out to the Reader that Ms. Kermani has herself admitted to using the “Iranian saying” concerning shooting someone/thing in the head. That much is, at least, true.

The more interesting question is: is Mitra Kermani so ignorant as to be unable to recognize that most people, if you tell them that you will shoot them in the head, will take such words as a threat?

Who was [someone] was the most dangerous chicken buyer and the most crookest mentally ill person in planet you can not find one word correct from him!! he used to worked In sale manger of [a company] before late he hired for chicken buyer…he is control frick and all illegal halal in [a company] was created by him when he worked in [a company] and he never scared if products is not Zabhieh means hand slaugher sell in illegal food label act to Muslim he hates Muslim and [someone] hate Muslim foods as proof that Mitra Kermani was hired in 1998 not as employee but also to direct halal food in [a company] they asked [a company] to remove halal from their brand since it was fraud halal they did Mitra refer to snake neck was [a company] brand of halal was cut by Mitra Kermani order on 1999 out of shelf and later Mitra Kermani order [a company] can back with heir regular bran not with sticker of halal and [a company] never complaint his in claim since they know they did fraud next was on June 23, 2005 Mitra Kermani cut new chicken called cericola halal chicken used as head of snake by hand of [someone] back to [a company] with no certification and all fraud over argue [someone] hired two years ago…said we do run halal while he could not he has not qualification to do so we buy surefresh cericola chicken but must go with correct certification since two time the company did illegal sent fraud food to [a company] in mix food and while Mitra Kermani supervise this halal food too many people hated her but the Muslim customer loved the products therefore snake was refer Mitra Kermani said to [someone] we cut your tail [a company] halal you bring cericola and we shoot head of snake yesterday of cericola chicken brand now still you plan to bit us since you are not want to obey and respect halal food and endanger halal food with mix Irish Italian and Jewish law mixed and that was Mitra Kermani to run and [someone] only to sell but [someone] hired and want to take power of Mitra Kermani while [someone] was Italian he could not [a company] must in year 2005 hired Mulsim proof Mitra Kermani doing illegal against [a company] or Muslim food to replace her that was not up to nonMuslim how to operated Muslim food and why Mitra Kermani order this is halal or this is not halal because [a company] said if products go to any law sue it was Mitra Keramni should answer Muslim not [a company] therefer interfere of [someone] for sickness of power and support of new comer [someone to someone] long term of fraud halal food and destroy and steal so many kilo of chicken from other supplier is was under question

Did the reader note how, in this entire paragraph, the only punctuation is the ‘!’ ending the first sentence? The rest appears to be one long run-on sentence rehashing the basic allegation that muslimperson made last time: that this whole Mitra Kermani affair is part of a JOOOOOOish conspiracy to cross-contaminate halal food sold to Muslims with kosher and Italian food.

You can’t buy that kind of paranoia.

When police listen to tape and listen to [someone] police told Mitra Kermani I saw hate in eyes of [someone] I want you do not go close to him and Mitra since that night never saw [someone] for 3 years.

Never issue was treat to death at all it was argue who is boss of halal…That is all that was [someone] that made serious to made money over this issues and Finally if 3 years two person has argue and Mitra never get arrested to death treat and even [someone] said he did not want Mitra get arrested too then why National post and bloggs should seat and put Mitra Kermani in treat .

Imagine two argue since…national post go to media that Mitra Kermani plan to shoot head of [someone]…believe writer and owner of time immortal believe story and same as in first police believe later after 3 years of investigation not found any single attempt of this treat then why you still keep saying and judging people just because Mitra Kermani is form Iran originally or Muslim or not have big lawyer…to sue blogger to stop them…their lawyer called bloger in case of Mitra Kermani she should cal herself to tell them if you like I can send you proof the document but Kathy Shaidle in first call start F and B words to Muslim since Mitra Kermani has not idea Kathy Sheidle is under sue of Human right commission since Mitra Kermani are not talk to Canadian or know the relationship and has understand why Kathy Sheidel hate Muslim so much and why?

From what I know of Ms. Shaidle, O Reader, she just plain hates harassing phone calls…and isn’t afraid to cuss out just such a caller. And she has every right to do so.

Note that another bait-and-switch has happened here. Whereas before, muslimperson had asserted that there was no evidence that Mitra Kermani was harassing people, now s/he admits that Ms. Kermani did, in fact, harass a Canadian blogger who also reported on the story. Why would Ms. Kermani even do this? Why would she call a Canadian blogger at home, uninvited and in a hostile manner?

(Note: if, in fact, muslimperson and Mitra Kermani are one and the same, then Ms. Kermani is again engaging in harassment at this very moment, and by this very correspondence).

As mater of fact first post of small dead animal and Kathy Sheidel caused Mitra received so many treat from nonMulsim who not know her this is unfair people who not know the case involve in criminal or civil case which is private or not need to explain by party to public unless this is need to do so . for security purpose Mitra Kermani did not told Muslim on the time what happened…since she knew this will hurt the plan Mitra liked to join Muslim and Non Muslim in Canada to easy making and selling halal food and all tear apart…

Here’s the plain facts of the matter (yet again): Since they severed their contract with Ms. Kermani’s company in 2005, Loblaw’s doesn’t do business with Mitra Kermani anymore, O Reader. Too bad, so sad, but that’s how the market works.

The real injustice here is the actions Ms. Kermani chose to engage in after the cessation of Misom’s contract with Loblaw’s. Instead of doing what any serious business owner would do (e.g. go out and find another distributor to supply), she elected to harass and threaten first the executives, and then the employees, of Loblaw’s. And then she elected to further harass anyone else who reported on the whole sordid affair.

the sound strange is that [someone] said to Mitra Kermani I am so sorry what I did to you that was not my fault I was new and that was [someone] who give me wrong information about you in year 2006 and later a month after he left…and he live in Europe now he left Canada too.

Mitra’s father worked for 35 years with Jewish Iranian and she grow up with Jewish and she is not anti Jewish but since she came to Canada she noticed so much unfairness from Jewish Canadian in food and pharmaceutical industry when money come plus today Misom Halal Food Products worked with two supplier are Jewish and lawyer of her once was Jewish but Jewish when hate Muslim only can able to destruct Muslim by label of Muslim only Jewish can go to police say this woman is terrorises and support…just lable Muslim to terrorist is act of antiMuslim from Jewish not care to mix halal food is act of antimuslim from Jewish seen in Canada at least.

Nature of job of Mitra Kermani in halal food made Jewish hate her like [someone]…said we have half of shelf…as broker and now Muslim used halal food to take our space in supermarkets this was more politic of supermarkets .

Got that straight, O Reader? Mitra Kermani loves the JOOOOOS. It’s just that the JOOOOOS are conspiring against her to contaminate the supply of halal food in Canada with that disgusting kosher crap that they eat. It’s all a damn setup! Muslims just want to work with Jews, but the hateful JOOOOS only ever desire to destroy Muslims and their hard work and efforts!

I just print the stuff I get in my inbox, O Reader. I take no responsibility for any of it, even the comedic aspects. And in a way, this travesty of writing is highly comedic, for how much of a self-parody it has become.

What I want from bloger do not talk about courts unless they have court reports able to go to courts and get information correctly you can chat others not court matter this is endanger parties if you do not know the details.

A fair point, but as I am not a Torontonian, I can’t just walk to the courts building and get the documents. I have, however, offered to link to them if someone else (*cough*hint*cough*) were to obtain them and scan them. Heck, I’d even provide space to host the scanned images!

If they exist, that is.

Until such time, I have to rely on what’s out there, which includes more than a few admissions by Mitra Kermani herself. She’s not the innocent that muslimperson is portraying her to be, O Reader. At the very least, she did make some of those death threats, and she has harassed other Canadian bloggers.

Do not judge people just because they are Muslim Iranian aren’t respected by Iranian or Muslim bad and good are every where Mitra asked her damages…finished but civil still in ON. Mitra Kermani asked …bring copy of any tape Mitra said she plan to shoot head of [someone] I and judge both like to hear that after 3 years by proof documents you can go and see those document is filed in public…there was not tape or any document s and wording proof Mitra said that I plan to shoot your head and cut your tail to [someone] it was example we used we cut first chicken was fraud we shoot second one on June 23 2004 and he went June 24 said she p lan to shoot me again I agree that I should not used the some idiom in Iranian can translate in wrong way as Police told me and I did respect that view because I am middle eastern see or say a word gun is we hear that daily but in Canadian life style they may think we plan to used that word for them and misrepresent the wording if you translate from your mother tongue to English it is not sound correct way but still the fact is 3 years nobody dies or hurt…all Misom halal food get dies cold blooded murder and I am disagree that big company has right to cut big volume when products made …and used for specially meals if not reason to cut just their anger and no better option to go mix and endanger Muslim meals I would say No…

Note, O Reader, the sudden shift from third-person references to Mitra Kermani to the use of the first-person “I”? Is this perhaps Mitra Kermani to whom I am speaking?

Note also the final claim in the above, that a big company does not have the right to cut ties with Misom Halal Foods. Someone obviously doesn’t understand the way business law works in Canada.

This is Canada, and not Iran, O Reader. If you tell someone you’re going to shoot them in the head, and if they believe you are serious, you can be charged for uttering a death threat. That’s just how the law works here. If Ms. Kermani — or muslimperson — would rather be judged by Iranian standards, or under Iranian law, well…how much does a plane ticket back to Iran cost?

Note also that muslimperson is still on about this apparent conspiracy to cross-contaminate halal food with Jewish kosher food — oh, those crafty JOOOOOS. Note, also, that no evidence has been brought forth to substantiate the claim.

Plus the products sell to customers…is only one factors not the final factors if products build between three groups Muslim directors Misom haalal and manufacture who products and…to sell that is…to cut that speciality meals at all that is not [good] and that is not million to change to billion to [someone] over night to steal too many small business to cash that to [someone] bank this is barbarian thefts from small companies using misconduct of lawyer if you see mafia god father movie the lawyer called [someone] who was Irish Jewish helped them in the film as you can see all those lawyer are main stream line of made stealing legal way…limited and all brokers to give 22 million cash to [someone] and nothing to Mitra Kermani except criminal court order no damage means ring human right discrimination and do not come and say you know better than people in business if Mitra was completely wrong then court will say that but find among 10 judges one bad judge…is easy to find…not like Muslim woman for sure!! But so far most judges was helpful in this matter!!

So again, it’s the fault of the JOOOOOOOOOOOS, O Reader. And again, just to be clear: in Ms. Kermani’s opinion, nobody but nobody actually possesses the right to terminate a business contract with Mitra Kermani. But those other folks, they are the ones who are like the Mafia.

At least, that’s what muslimperson would have us believe.

It’s hard to keep up with the contortions in this “logic,” O Reader, but for you…I try.

I would simply ask the Reader to consider the possibility that muslimperson — and/or Mitra Kermani — hasn’t got the first clue what business law in Canada actually says.

Muslim are fight for their right this is not up to [someone] to steal Mitra Kermani and let [someone] to cash her cheque and pay damage 22 million to [someone] who wrote all good contract in favour of employees are [someone] and [someone]…why we say this to public to fight all wrong doing and all the way and tools Loblaw used to fight Mitra Kermani on May 5, 2005 it was Mitra Kermani said good bye…after 6 month of abuse of [someone]…

Note that another shift in tactics has occurred here, O Reader. Now, the claim is that Mitra Kermani was the one who broke off contact, and presumably the contract that is at issue here? Yes, I do believe that is what I just read.

Of course, if this new claim by muslimperson is the actual truth of the matter, then Mitra Kermani has no leg to stand on anymore — if she’s the one who broke off her contract, she has no right whatsoever to dictate to anyone who they should and should not do business with, nor does she have the right to demand anything from them, whether financially or otherwise.

I you like Canada and law in Canada we like halal food law as well not like or not like to eat it but at least respect it or simply step back of Muslim meals and sell pork and win!! Nobody forced…to sell halal in wrong production lines when every body know then they forced to fix it again when every back calm again they mix it then step back of Muslim food let Muslim run their food like Jewish run their kosher foods!! Why Jewish and Irish and Italian and German to fee d Muslim here and spoon feed us with mix pork and kosher foods why!!

Those JOOOOOOS are at it again. Or is muslimperson unaware that kosher food also must be pork-free, since Jewish dietary law prohibits the consumption of pork as well?

Notice another contradiction, O Reader: “nobody forced…to sell halal”…but equally, nobody has the right to cut ties with Misom Halal Foods. Dizzying, I know.

… asked to made the halal food when it built and came in high volume tries to control it by boss and interfere in halal food law and when Muslim and Misom halal not agreed they abuse then breach contract not pay damage and then they sue Mitra Kermani then change civil claim…to criminal and not let any negation to pay damage simple way and scare other supermarket and then change all mix halal food sell today…and all illegally…and then after three years lost the criminal court on nov 2007 they went to national post and waste people brain to accept new slander why?

I’m not actually sure what gives muslimperson the ability to claim that because she was replaced as a halal foods supplier, her rights were somehow being infringed — I’m pretty sure she didn’t invent halal food, after all.

no more respond from Muslimperson to this subject you do not need to say your opionion paragraph by pragraph you just simply can or need to post parts and let people made decision about that.

As the Reader can see, I choose to do both. The blockquoting format on the site here does make it easy to just read only the text from muslimperson.

but we can not for security…also say all the truth here. Misom halal food was the first Muslim company put flag of Canada in thier logos. we are all Canadian. then just respect

This would be a nice thing to believe, were only a little evidence available in support of such a statement.

good luck with your blog god bless Canada and all Candadian citizen include Muslim citizen

We Love Canadaian halal food
Trust Misom halal food products for true halal abd taste
go by “Canada Islamic Halal food committee “for halal certificate as the best recognize halal certificate in Canada

I agree that Canada includes Muslim citizens. I disagree that many Muslim values — and many Koranic teachings — are compatible with Canada, however.

At any rate, this may well be the last we hear from muslimperson, and if so let me just say that I do wish him/her well. I might suggest some involved study of, among other things, Canadian business law and a book of basic English grammar and spelling.

But God bless, O Writer, and take care.

Vox Day links to an article from the New York Times that discusses new policies being put in place by Italy’s recently-elected government.

Underscoring the new Italian government’s determination to crack down on illegal Immigration and what the government contends is associated crime, Italy’s police arrested hundreds of people this week in a sweep of migrant shantytowns in major urban areas across the country, the police announced Thursday.

Nearly 400 people were arrested, including more than 100 who were immediately expelled. The police said more than 100 of those arrested were suspected of violating immigration laws, 180 of theft or prostitution, and 92 of drug dealing. Those arrested included 50 Moroccans and 32 Romanians.

The widely publicized raids were a strong signal from Italy’s new right-wing government, which is led by Silvio Berlusconi and includes the anti-immigrant Northern League Party, that it will keep its promises to pursue tougher policies toward immigrants.

“The anti-immigrant sweep was a positive thing because that’s what people want,” said Umberto Bossi, the minister of institutional reforms and federalism. “People ask us for safety, and we must give it to them.”

Vox is predicting that Italy will, within a decade or so, withdraw from the EU (given that the Italians seem to dislike most of the rest of Europe, this is probably a good possibility). Whether or not that comes to pass, however, this crackdown is ultimately a bit of a sign of hope for the Italian nation.

Especially in Europe, but over here as well, multiculturalism has become something vastly different than what it began as. The “mosaic/patchwork quilt” I was told about in school was all well and good when it simply meant that people wore different (and often more colourful) styles of clothing on the streets and opened up all manner of tasty restaurants and novelty shops. Now that it means that all manner of frankly ugly ideologies — things like Sharia law — are making inroads into Western democracies, multiculturalism is revealed to be something much less beneficial to those nations which espouse it.

I seem to recall that it was Lenin who remarked that the capitalist West would sell Communism the rope from which the West itself would hang. Lenin, ultimately, turned out to be wrong, but I can’t help but wonder if the sentiment itself had a ring of truth to it. More and more, it seems like multiculturalism is the rope from which the West — or, at least, some Western nations — may end up being hung. And there’s really only one plausible response to that danger: jettison multiculturalism.

Islamist blogger Shaukat Khawja really, really doesn’t like Jews — so much so, in fact, that he would rather that Theodor Herzl’s proposal that all Jews convert (or be converted) to Christianity had gone through back in its day.

Got that? A radical Muslim so hates the Jews that he would rather they had all been converted into infidel Christians, instead of being allowed to remain Jews.

And why?

Speaks Shaukat:

The history of the world would have been so peacefully different if the propsed mass Baptism of European Jewry had gone through.

Because clearly, Jews are responsible for all the wars of the world, right?

How much more true would Shaukat’s statement be, I wonder, were it modified to allow for the possibility that Muhammad had been killed in a tribal skirmish just prior to his first “visitation” from whatever demonic entity decided to temporarily assume the identity of Gabriel?

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Update - the Meltdown: I seem to have touched a nerve, as Shaukat has now done two things. He had begun by demonstrating the maturity I have come to expect from him now, on par with that of a twelve-year-old casting angry aspersions from atop a playground. But following that up, he says a couple of…well, to be honest, his statements are gems in their own right.

For example:

Without going into Biblical treatment of Jews, which quotes contempt coming from Moses, Jesus, and St. Paul - I wonder why Jews were expelled from almost every European country — England topping the list — expulsion of Jews for almost 350 years. Could it be interpreted as a sign of Christians’ love or hatred towards Jews - and for what reasons???

Poor grammar aside, it is interesting that Shaukat chose to mention Moses — the man who, arguably, was the instrument by which God established the foundations of Judaism — as an example of one who has only demonstrated “contempt” for Jews. I suppose a narrow reading of, for example, the Book of Exodus could lead one to think that, since Moses does spend quite a bit of time castigating the Hebrew people for their sinfulness.

But then, the Hebrew people did sinful things in the desert, not the least of which was to build a golden calf and worship it. Humanity as a whole regularly sins, and periodically needs to be corrected, sometimes harshly. Certainly, Jesus and St. Paul both give example of this, as did Moses in his day.

Following Shaukat’s odd statement, though, is a list of dates in history that supposedly demonstrate Christian persecution of Jews. And, to be fair, many of the dates he lists do in fact accurately mention instances of persecution of Jews by Christian religious authorities. Other dates he lists, however, do not belong on the list.
Read the rest of this entry »

File this under “you can lead a horse to water…”

I think the good Reader can agree that Europe has evolved, in recent decades, very liberal sexual morés, and that European governments spend a lot of time and money promoting safe sex, birth control, and all the rest. I’m sure that sex-ed in European schools is probably quite comprehensive, much more so than in North America.

And what has been the result? Are European teens and young-ish adults more sexually responsible than their North American counterparts?

Apparently not: “[a] third of 16 to 35-year-old men and 23% of women questioned said they drank to increase their chance of sex.”

Almost half of participants in Vienna, Austria had drunk alcoholand had sex by the time they were 16 compared with 36% in Venice, Italy, 37% in Palma, Spain and 30% in Liverpool.

…

Those who had been drunk in the past four weeks were more likely to have had five or more partners, sex without a condom and to have regretted sex after drink or drugs in the past 12 months.

Cannabis, Cocaine or ecstasy use was linked to similar consequences.

Study leader Professor Mark Bellis, director of the Centre for Public Health at Liverpool said: “Millions of young Europeans now take drugs and drink in ways which alter their sexual decisions and increase their chances of unsafe sex or sex that is later regretted.

“Yet despite the negative consequences, we found many are deliberately taking these substances to achieve quite specific sexual effects.”

Chickens do indeed come home to roost; it was predicted, many years ago and many times since then, that comprehensive, birth control-focused sex education would increase the promiscuity and sexual irresponsibility of society.. Of course, only easily ignored conservative commentators were doing the predicting. Now that the evidence is showing that those predictions are being borne out, perhaps we can begin to re-think the damage we are doing to our children, and to ourselves?

The former may exist. The latter, as Mark Steyn points out, does not:

What the west calls “moderate Muslims”, Islam regards as apostates. Sometimes, as with Dr [Wafa Sultan], they’re atheist apostates; sometimes, as with Miss [Irshad Manji], they’re lesbian apostates; and sometimes, as with Magdi Allam, they’re Christian apostates. To Islam, it doesn’t matter which branch of apostasy you opt for: As the Prophet [Muhammad] puts it, “Whoever changes his Religion, kill him.” All four principal schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree. So do the 36 per cent of young Muslims in Britain who believe apostasy should be punished by death. But, to the west, which branch of apostasy has most appeal to Muslims is an interesting question.

There are two main reasons why I feel myself compelled to take such a hard-line stance against Islam, its false prophet, and the various violent excesses of many who hold to that religion. The first, of course, is that Islam is, itself, a false religion, and is worthy of opposition on those grounds alone.

Equally, though, I cannot comprehend how one could view Islam as being in any way compatible with Western, Christian-founded ideals like human rights, equality before the law, equality before God, and other fundamental tenets of what we call “freedom.” In Islam, none of these things exists. There is no free will; there is only the will of Allah. There is no equality; there is Sharia. There is no freedom; there is only submission.

And ultimately, there is no love either; there is only hatred. Whether that hatred is directed at the Jews or at those who are not sufficiently “Islamic” in their character shifts week to week, but the hatred itself is ever-present.

On the one hand, Magdi Allam’s conversion is bad news…on the other hand, it’s good news in that it suggests the most effective strategy against a resurgent, radicalized Islam may be the oldest of all — an evangelizing Christianity.

The response of Europe to its progressive Islamicization has been a predominantly secular one that has sought to push Christianity even further toward the sidelines. In Canada, Muslim lobby groups (like the Canadian Islamic Congress, headed by terror-supporter Mohamed Elmasry) use human rights commissions to silence and censor those who dare to articulate any views that holds Islam suspect. In America, CAIR attempts to do the same through the civil courts.

And for the most part, when the West has roused itself to push back, it has done so through secular avenues. And while it is good to meet the enemy on the battlefield, whatever form that battlefield might take, it is not enough to merely win at the secular side of the game, because that is the distraction, the feint. And indeed, becoming too entrenched in a secular response to Islam will be our undoing, because Islam’s advantage is its ability to proselytize into the void that secularism leaves in its wake.

A strong, expanding religion like Islam can only be met, and subsequently thrown down, by a strong, vibrant religion that exists in opposition to it. Traditionally, this has been Christianity.

And so it must be, again.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Shaukat Khawja is blogging, I think, about how he proud to be an Islamic radical. Oh, he doesn’t really mention himself, per sé, but he does attempt to deflect the typical stigma that is attached to the term “radical” when it is used in reference to the false religion of Muhammad.

One famous biblical “radical” was Jesus (as), who challenged and opposed the evil power of Rabbinical class, and condemned them for distorting the Laws of Moses. For that Jesus was projected as “radical” and a grave threat to Roman colonial empire. Another famous “radical” was Lord Buddha, who challenged the repressive hegemony of Brahmin upper-caste minority. Nelson Mandela was another “radical”, because he upset the status quo - and challenged the racist Afrikan regime. When Senator Cheney called him “radical”, the western world and Zionist entity rejoiced - including his supporters, though, for him being “honoured” as a freedom-fighter.

Same goes for Malcolm X and Rev. Martin Luther King. Both were dubbed “radicals” because they sought to subvert and overturn the racist political culture that had been institutionalized in the US for the benefit of a small minority of elites - most of whom take orders from Israel Lobbying groups (AIPAC, ADL, AJC, etc.).

The best and living example of progressive, emancipatory radicalism can be found in the Seerah of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) - who, like Moses and Jesus - challenged the existing religious and political doctrine of his time. Islamic message too, can be called “radical” because it conclusively rejects all forms of caste, Racism, class oppression, usury, exploitation, abuse of the law and dehumanization of human beings.

Shaukat is something of a fan of the Iranian Ayatollahs, and so we can presume from his having said the above that Islam’s rejection of the dehumanization of human beings is, in part, predicated on the assumption that women are not human beings, since women in Iran do suffer no small degree of dehumanization, exploitation, and abuse. The same can be said for women in many Islamic nations, and perhaps we ought to be thankful that the blogger at RehmatPedia is being honest in what he has omitted from his article.

As to his sense of history, I observe that with typical flair, Shaukat has infused his lesson with no small measure of anti-Jewish sentiments, as is his custom. As to whether Jesus opposed the evil power of the Rabbinical class, I can’t say (having not been there personally) — most accounts of Jesus’ life suggest, however, that the Pharisees weren’t evil so much as they were hypocritical and wrong-thinking. Nobody could honestly deny the ardent faith of the rabbis — Jesus’ issue with them was that the way they lorded their faith over others was also the antithesis of the faith that they held.
Read the rest of this entry »

Interesting commentary from the Anchoress:

…thanks to the noble environmentalists, we’re not allowed to drill for the huge beds of oil we own; because we’re not allowed to drill and refine our own resources, our heating and fuel bills are skyrocketing, our grocery bills are rising and - most troublingly - we may be facing Food shortages…and still mucking up Gaia, to boot.

Doesn’t sound so noble to me. And so much for our “oilman” president freeing us from dependence on other countries. He did that about as well as Bill Clinton before him.

…

Yeah, it’s bad policy. But I’m wondering if it is also immoral?

I’m sure that sounds extreme, and I don’t mean to. It also sounds very Roman Catholic, but I can’t help that; it seems to me that there is a morality question here — is it ever right to burn food for energy when people are hungry?

Taking a line through the idea of things being used for the purposes intended, one might call burning for food both “disordered” and (when doing so threatens humanity) “intrinsically evil.”

It’s certainly not news anymore to observe that food costs world-wide are rising. Even Wal-Mart is beginning to ration sales of rice (although their per-customer limit is still an indefensible 200 pounds!). Now, the world food market will respond in the way it always does — it will find new food production options, such as utilizing both GMO and organic options. Farmers will not leave as much of their land fallow in a year. Perhaps governments will step in, in some cases, to prevent urban growth from consuming areas of arable land. There are numerous corrective pressures, in other words, that will exert themselves. And were the only issue that of balancing food production against population growth, those pressures would be sufficient.

But now we add in the craze over biofuels, and suddenly one is left to wonder. If so much corn and rice is being used up to produce an alternative fuel source for Westerners — and then at the expense of the well-being and lives of people in the Third World (who cannot absorb the rising cost of food at all, unlike most people in North America and Europe) — can the use of biofuels be called moral? One tends not to think so. Indeed, when one factors in the observation that biofuels, in addition to causing massive shortages in stocks of staple foods (grains, specifically), are also more polluting to refine than is crude oil, the use of ethanol and other “bio” alternatives at the pump becomes almost indefensible.

John C. Wright has further commentary on the issue, and he doesn’t mince words — in his view, current biofuel schemes are staggeringly immoral, and can only be ruinous.

This one is for any British readers! This is the day to be proud of your country, people — wave the flag, and to hell with anyone who worries that the sight of the red cross will be offensive to some people and unduly remind them of the Crusades! So wave it proud, and wave it high.

Of course: no national holiday is complete without a bunch of progressives attempting to slander the country observing the holiday. I cannot help but thinking that this proposal — a re-drawing of the map of areas of Europe that more or less deletes England entirely, breaking it up into three smaller zones — is a calculated insult.

Samuel Skinner writes in again to follow up on my previous reply to him. It seems that my prediction has come true; between Joel and Sam, it would appear that another atheist season is upon Time Immortal.

Perhaps it’s just my fuzzy memory, but I seem to recall another such season beginning at about this time last year. Weird.

I think I’m going to handle this one in an “interlinear” fashion as well, simply because it wanders between a bunch of topics and concepts; it will be easier to framework a response (and seem more coherent) to handle it paragraph by paragraph.

By “looking up on google”, I was refering to atheists basing Morality on some something other than theistic premises. I didn’t mean to show it was the only way with that comment, just that it occurs.

That’s true to a point, although most such premises are…wanting? Yes, wanting, O Reader. Or, alternatively, they are somewhat hypocritical, as they are little more than an attempt to invoke a very (or very nearly) Christian moral sensibility without invoking the Christian deity. Of course, some sense of telos is still used in secular moral reasoning; absent an appeal to some manner of higher ideal, it is more or less impossible to suggest that there is any sort of concrete moral ideal.

Again, that’s not to say that believers are inherently more moral than atheists, nor is it to say that atheists are inherently immoral; it is simply to remark that we really cannot begin to discuss the idea that morality exists and/or that it has concrete tenets of any sort without first invoking something that atheists, on the surface at least, deny exists: something that transcends the human condition and this empirical realm in which we live.

Most people can agree that it is wrong to rape someone, or that it is wrong to kill someone. Most people can agree that men and women are human persons possessed of equal rights and dignity on the basis of their humanity alone. Behind each such concept is a moral imperative that cannot be justified from within a purely empirical or falsifiable framework, especially the notion that there is an innate dignity and equality that exists between all human beings (since all the evidence suggests that steep inequalities exist in terms of things like physical strength, level of intelligence, pain and temperature tolerance, and so on).

Scratch an atheist’s moral reasoning, I have discovered, and one very quickly finds a very subtle attempt to sneak a transcendental concept into what is ostensibly an argument from cold, concrete empiricism or falsifiability in the best scientific tradition. Because one cannot compose a moral imperative without doing so at some level.

Um… it isn’t straw man or adhominum. You are saying that because of Christians we have all this wondeful things. Implied in that statement is that noone else would have been capable of doing such deeds.

Firstly, it was a straw-man argument that was previously made, O Reader; Sam responded to my suggestion of society’s reliance on Christian moral capital by dismantling the assertion that theists are more moral than atheists. Since I made no such claim in my original article, Sam’s invocation of that claim is an almost textbook example of a straw man argument — he regards my point as having been refuted when in fact all he has done is refuted a point I did not make in the first place.

Intellectual dishonesty? Perhaps. The charitable assumption would be carelessness, of course.

At any rate, Sam attempts to justify himself above, though not to great effect; my statement comes with no attached implication that “noone else would have been capable” of establishing Western society with the moral foundation and legal principles that it has. I’m fully willing to grant the possibility that another philosophical system, apart from Christianity, could have furnished a moral society. And indeed, there are other philosophies in the world.

Of course, in looking at different societies that have emerged around the world, I also tend to look on my above statement in the same light as Churchill looked upon democracy: Christianity may not have been the only system that could have given the West its moral and legal foundation, and it may not have been the best system upon which to base that moral and legal foundation; it is better than all the others that have been tried.

We can look at the Islamic world and observe that in Islam there is not a great lot of evidence that the Muslim religion would have furnished the West with the same concepts of equality and human dignity. Much the same can be said for Hinduism (the most salient example of which is India, which still struggles with the concept of a caste system). The failures of various flavours of animism are made evident in looking at Africa, and even atheism has not had a good go of things when it has been made the official state “religious” stance — the most morally depraved regimes in human history (i.e. Stalin’s Soviet Union and Mao’s China) were very ardently atheistic.

An argument could be made in favour of Buddhism, except that Buddhism doesn’t really proseltyize and so never reached the West during its founding. And even then, those nations which comprise Buddhist majorities have either not done well, or have done well in part thanks to Western intervention.

In other words, when one takes as an example the rest of the world and the societies that have sprung up around every other flavour of philosophical conjecture, one is left with the distinct impression that while it is certainly possible that Christianity is not the only religion which might have furnished the West with its moral foundation, it is rather improbable that another religion, or any kind of secularism, would have done the job.

And like as not, the way history unfolded was that it was Christianity which formed the moral and philosophical foundation of the West, and it is Christianity’s influence which can be detected still in bills of rights and codes of law in most Western nations. That is not to say these nations are inherently “Christian,” nor is it in any way an attempt to imply, again, that Christians are the more moral — it is simply an observation of an historical reality. Christian principles built up most Western nations, and Christian soldiers fought and died to preserve them against outside aggressors (such as the Moors) during those key, formative centuries.

People aren’t inherently moral- psychopaths are a good example of those without “morality written upon their heart. In addition people have “written upon their heart” deeply immoral instinctions like tribalism.

I make two observations about Sam’s argument here.

Firstly, if one wants to refute the idea that not all people are inherently moral, one could do better than basing one’s objection on persons with some manner of disorder. I could, for example, assert that people are inherently possessed of a working pair of lungs; arguing that some people have asthma does not actually disprove the statement, because asthma is a disorder, a deviation from the norm. And I am commenting on the norm. That psychopaths act immorally is regrettable and unfortunate, yes, but it does not mean that the in the normative sense, human beings do not have an innate moral sensibility etched into the fabric of their being. It just means that they are either a) ignoring it, or b) not perceiving it.

Secondly, I observe that if what Sam says is true, then Sam has just undermined the notion that any sort of humanistic morality can be composed; that is, he has argued that the best moral code that secularism could hope to promulgate is a sort of neutral amorality. This would seem to argue against his assertions, and mine, that theists are not the only ones who can be moral.

Now, the remark about tribalism is interesting, O Reader, and Sam posits that the instinct towards it is a) immoral and b) also written on the human heart. Tribalism certainly has its bad points, although to be fair it is like any other human instinct: the morality or immorality of it is dependent on what we do with it, as much as is the case with…say…the human sexual instinct.

Tribalism can lead to xenophobia and racism, it is true, just as the human sexual instinct can, if improperly exercised, result in things like rape. However, human beings are social creatures; we tend to fare poorly when we “go it alone.” The tribal instinct bonds us to other members of a “group” (whether of ethnic or other derivation) even when our relationships with other group members are strained.

Perhaps Sam does not believe in free will, and so does not make the connection between instinct and intentionality; I do not know. If, however, he does believe in free will, I am surprised that he has missed this key point. And if he does not believe in free will, then I am surprised that he feels the need to continue to argue the point with me, since the both of us are deterministically locked in to our respective philosophies, and it is thus a waste of oxygen to even engage in a debate about them.

Although I suppose it could be argued, in that case, that he can’t help himself.

You seem to forget that we didn’t have much of a moral progress until after the 17th century. Change was little- serfdom, monarchy and a persons value based on blood were the rule for the day.

Sam is clinging here to a rather antiquated view of history. And no, O Reader, your good Author is not denying that things like kings and peasants did not exist. But Sam’s covert invocation of the concept of the Dark Ages is rather suspect, since for the last 70 years or so most historians have disputed that such an era even existed.

And in plain point of fact, the statement is false: a very concrete moral progress can be observed as one follows the historical evolution of the doctrine of the Church, which is documented back to the very early days of the Christian community in Europe and the Mediterranean area — that same doctrine would not be without an application in daily life. Codes of law and other derivations of moral systems have existed throughout history, and have undergone gradual changes as the moral awareness of human beings has expanded and been tempered.

The “moral capital” that you term didn’t occur due to the Greeks or 2000 years of Christian history. The increase in caring about human rights and civil liberties- not to mention the inherent worth of human beings- had to wait until the 19th century. That is where Western Civilizations moral capital comes from. You can point to philosophers from centuries past, but they had NO EFFECT!

Sam’s assertion, while interesting, would probably come as news to the people who drafted the Magna Carta (Christians, for the most part), as well as to William Wilberforce, the British Christian who led the charge to disband slavery back in the 18th century.

Right and wrong aren’t entirely inherent in people. Feral children don’t have it for starters. You are forming observations of reality based on your philosophy, not the other way around.

Much as with Sam’s example of psychopaths, O Reader, feral children can be considered an exception apart from the rule; after all, humanity evolved in conditions not unlike those that feral children subsist in (indeed, early humans may even have had a rougher go of it, at least initially), and yet morality was able to flourish within each tribe (tribes often went to war with each other, of course). And at some point, that morality was able to expand to include other tribes as well (we know this because of the emergence of trade between groups).

in a couple of paragraphs, Sam will give examples of other early civilizations, some of them being “primitive” tribes, who likewise established moral imperatives. That he does not see this as further evidence of the intrinsic, nature of said imperatives is — to your good Author, at least — both tragic and amusing. But then, one is used to atheists abandoning logic and reason when the discussion turns to religion.

The reason people don’t practice “love everyone” is the reason the SHakers don’t exist. You are asking why people don’t attempt to live up to an impossible standard and them blaming them for failing. By impossible, I don’t mean people can’t achieve it- I mean it won’t work in the real world. Loving everyone leaves you open to those callus enough to us it against you.

Sam demonstrates his ignorance of history; the Shakers died out because they were one of the few Christian groups that did not believe in proselytism, and also practiced strict celibacy. When, as a group, you’re not out winning new converts and not giving birth to new members, you really can’t be expected to last forever, even if the initial response to your emergence is positive.

I find it hard to believe that Sam was unaware of Shaker doctrine regarding celibacy and conversion, however; it seems more likely that his statement above is a deliberate distortion of the truth in order to make a a point that is, unfortunately, only too easily disposed of.

Chesterton once observed that “the Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult, and left untried.” I do believe that Sam has given us a most poignant example of this phenomenon.

Sam very correctly bemoans the fact that the world we live in is, for the most part, an uncharitable place, and harsh. What is unfortunate is that Sam’s proposed method of dealing with this (that is, refusing to love everyone — i.e. actively hating enemies) only serves to perpetuate the lack of charity and incredible harshness at work in the world today. In essence, Sam is saying, in one breath, that the world has no love in it, and in the next breath he is arguing that we should go on not loving, for this is the best response to our loveless world.

Do try not to get whiplash, O Reader.

What is truly unfortunate is that the standard being proposed — “love your enemies” — while difficult, is not impossible. Its primary form is forgiveness, and to understand that even those who persecute and hurt us are, nonetheless, human beings with a dignity equal to our own. And we must respect that, even if they do not; to do otherwise is simply to sink to the depths they have let themselves sink to, and to perpetuate hatred.

“Our faith binds us to extend forgiveness to them. And the fact they are impenitent does not give us license to hold on to bitterness toward them. The command is absolute: forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those (everybody, not just the people who have satisfied us emotionally by a serious act of contrition) who trespass against us.

Indeed, refusal to forgive trains us for nothing but misery. We think we will find peace when They say they’re sorry. But if we’ve trained ourselves to be bitter and cynical, we will be stuck there no matter what They say (because who can ever believe Them anyway?) And besides, if one of Them says sorry, there are always going to be plenty more who don’t. So we hold on to our bitterness in any event.”

Yes, the idea of loving one’s enemy is difficult — that is why so few people, including Sam, have made an honest go of it. And yet other people have; one recalls the nun who was shot dead in the street a couple of years ago during the riotous protests in many Muslim nations over th