timeimmortal

Christ endured the whips and taunts of the Romans; he’ll have endured whatever P. Z. Myers saw fit to do to Him as well. That’s right — according to a post on his website (I will not do him the dignity of a link), Prof Myers has carried out his threat to desecrate a Eucharistic host.

Yes, the sad little cracker has met its undignified end, so stop pestering me. The cracker, the Koran, and another surprise entry have been violated and are gone. You’ll have to wait until tomorrow for the details, what little of them there are. I must quickly apologize to all you good Catholics who were hoping to attend Mass, since you can’t anymore — I have been told many hundreds of times now that cracker abuse violates your right to practice your religion. I guess you’ll have to adapt. Secular humanism is a good alternative, if you aren’t already flocking to join the Mormons.

I suppose secular humanism is a decent alternative, if one wanted to live in an amoral vacuum in which the various social tenets of what constitutes moral behaviour are negotiable based on personal taste. Personally, I prefer something a little…stiffer (which rather emulates my taste in liquid spirits, I might note).

Myers is a sad, sad man and a bigot, rather a lost soul, and rather a textbook example of just how a hatred of God (as opposed to simple non-belief) is a gateway unto madness. He is to be pitied, and one can only pray that he be forgiven; he knows not that which he does.

Related: drunk atheist jerk storms into worship service, berates parishoners. But remember — he is the champion of reason; the parishoners who were insulted by him should have thanked him for enlightening them with his wisdom and rationality.

Had atheist professor and blogger P. Z. Myers suggested desecrating a Koran by wrapping it in bacon, he’d be out of a job so fast as to make his head spin.

But since he’s proposing to desecrate a Eucharistic host, he probably won’t even get a stern talking to.

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.

knowmuslimwell writes in with some links for the Reader’s consideration:

Frequencly asking question in islam:
http://al-islam.org/static.php?content=faq
—-
learn about isalm in simple way for beginners:
http://al-islam.org/index.php?sid=489855789&t=80&cat=80
————————
Learn about: how the holy book of QURAN wrote and Tafseer means explanation of bit by bit of Quran like allah means what? Etc.: almizan is one the best book explain quaran and Mr. Tabatabi wrote this book: this is advance books
http://www.almizan.org/
http://www.almizan.org/new/Tafseer/volume1.asp
http://www.almizan.org/Tafseer/Volume1/fateha1.asp
————————
what is shia wrote: learn more about islam
http://www.shia.org/islamicwww.html
http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/ahlulbayt/index.htm
what Iranian are saying find it in shia web page
—-
if you look for specific information use search engine go to this web page:
http://al-islam.org/dilpprojects.php
type your wording in search engine
=====

if you have more question to ask scholare in Isalm: use this web page:
http://al-islam.org/static.php?content=contact

There’s not a lot about those sites that’s really offensive, at least not overtly, and some of the content is good for a laugh. Obviously, there is something of a Shia bias to the site content.

I do observe that the Almizan site does contain a few “explanations” of Christianity from an Islamic perspective that contain the usual historical errors that one expects to find in such discourses, but other than that the sites serve as a suitable primer on Shia Islam.

I don’t know why that would be interesting to the Reader, whom I trust has no desire to follow false Religions. But hey…this is what arrives in my inbox, so this is what I share.

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 »

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 »

Raw courage from a group of Danish priests:

84 priests in the Danish church wrote an open letter, about the contrasts between Islam and Christianity. They say the two Religions don’t have much in common. The letter follows a letter written by the Danish Church Council in response to a ‘call for dialog’ from Muslim organizations.

The parish priests stress that Christians and Muslims don’t talk about the same God. The signatories think that the council’s letter had gone too far concerning the theological and ethical bands between Christianity and Islam, and say that the two religions are rather opposites of each other.

Theologist Katrine Winkel Holm and parish priest Jesper Bacher, both members of the Islam-critical Network (Islamkritisk Netværk), were the initiators of the new open letter. There are different opinions on coexistence between Christianity and Islam among Danish theologists. The signatories on the new letter come from across the religious spectrum.

As to whether Allah (in the Islamic sense) and God (in the Christian understanding) are actually the same divinity, I remain undecided (although I suspect that the “yes” answer will bear out).

Looking at the issue purely based on the respective theologies, though, there is no way anyone can conclude that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, and it’s great that these priests have seen fit to bring that truth to light, even if the Koran does have a few lies and half-truths about Jesus within its pages.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

But don’t take my word for it, O Reader. Rehmat says so, so it must be true!

US$5 million film depict Islamic view of Jesus, son of Virgin Mary - A great prophet of Allah, speaking parables and moving through soft light and angelic chants among a group of zealot and conspiring Jews (Pharisees). The narrative are borrowed from the Gospel of St. Barnabas, which was not cannonized as part of Christian Bible, The New Testament (NT). However, NT, do contain five books of Jewish Bible, The Old Testament (OT).

Got that? The Pentateuche (the first five books of the Old Testament — Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy — which also comprise the Jewish Torah) are a part of the New Testament.

The stupid makes me laugh sometimes.

At least Shaukat, the blogger at RehmatPedia, is at least admitting that the Koran is based on false, erroneous texts (like the Barnabas “gospel”)! Still, does anyone else get creeped out at the fact that such a hateful Islamist bigot as Shaukat has nevertheless managed to secure employment at the Pickering Nuclear Generating Facility?

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Update: Apocalypse: Shaukat responds!

Talmudic hacker, Ken, has questioned my statement that five books of Jewish Bible (OT) are part of Christian Bible.

The Old Testament (OT) has 39 books and the New Testament (NT) has 27. (There are 66 books in the entire Bible). Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are the five books of OT, which were incorporated into NT – to show that Christianity is another extension of Judaism. However, the great majority of present-day Jewish population of world (13.5 million) don’t follow the OT – but Talmud, which was written by Rabbis over one century after the Crucification – and contains Jewish hatred toward Jesus’ his mother and rest of Christians:

Sanhedrin 106a . Says Jesus’ mother was a whore: “She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters.” Also in footnote #2 to Shabbath 104b it is stated that in the “uncensored” text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, “Mary the hairdresser,” had sex with many men.

It’s hard to believe the guy who blogs at RehmatPedia is the same age as my wife, isn’t it? Based on the information he gives here concerning his date of birth, he should be on the order of 24 years old…nearly 25. Reading him, one would think he’s about ten years younger.

And he works in a nuclear power plant.

Anyhow, I love how in his attempt to clarify his blatant error, he has only reinforced it. Perhaps he has never actually opened the Bible to see the order of books in it, but were he to do so he would observe that the five books of the Torah — the Pentateuche — are the first five books of what Christians call the Old Testament.

The books of the New Testament begin with the four Gospels, proceed through various epistles and letters, and end with the apocalyptic texts of Peter, John, Jude, and Revelation.

Notice how he contradicts himself? He begins by asserting that there are 39 books in the Old Testament (there are actually 47, but nevermind that just right now), but then in the following sentence claims that the Pentateuche are “the five books” (in English, the use of “the” in that context is meant to suggest exclusivity) of the Old Testament.

So which is it, Shaukat? Thirty-nine? Forty-seven? Five?

Even more confusingly, he then goes on to assert that the sole five books of the New Testament, according to him, were then “incorporated into the [New Testament]“. So after narrowing the Old Testament down to five books, Shaukat then tells us that those five books were included in the New Testament canon.

So why even mention the Old Testament? Apparently, it’s empty!

Of course, Shaukat’s anti-Jewish sentiments are well known (how confusing, in light of his recent apparent conversion to said religion!), and bear no commenting on. But isn’t it lamentable, O Reader, how incorrect this young man in Ontario is about something which is so easily verifiable? And he works at a nuclear power plant?

My advice: if you live in Pickering, move. Based on what we learned from Chernobyl, it would be best to put at least 100 km between yourself and the plant.

More absurdity from the wacky world of Islam. Let’s review.

Muslim scientists and clerics have called for the adoption of Mecca time to replace GMT, arguing that the Saudi city is the true centre of the Earth.

Call by Muslims for the rest of us to do something nonsensical? Check!

Mecca is the direction all Muslims face when they perform their daily prayers.

Useless reiteration, by the reporting media outlet, of a fact that we already know and have heard ad nauseum? Check!

The call was issued at a conference held in the Gulf state of Qatar under the title: Mecca, the Centre of the Earth, Theory and Practice.

One geologist argued that unlike other longitudes, Mecca’s was in perfect alignment to magnetic north.

Bogus facts and outright lies? Check!

He said the English had imposed GMT on the rest of the world by force when Britain was a big colonial power, and it was about time that changed.

Victim card played? Check!

The underlying belief is that scientific truths were also revealed in the Muslim holy book, and it is the work of scholars to unearth and publicise the textual evidence.

Reporting media outlet treats as credible a stance toward Muslim Scripture that would be derided in same media outlet were the subject some attempt at concordance between Christian Scripture and science? Check!

But the movement is not without its critics, who say that the notion that modern science was revealed in the Koran confuses spiritual truth, which is constant, and empirical truth, which depends on the state of science at any given point in time.

Unusual reasonableness on the part of the reporting media outlet in an effort to allow for the possibility that faith and science can be reconciled? Check!

I am going to have to remember that last sentence, though — despite my facetiousness, there is a goodly deal of truth to the statement. In conceding that, I am not saying that there is necessarily a conflict between spiritual and empirical truths — a truth and another truth cannot contradict each other, after all — but certainly the above is not a stance I am used to seeing in the media, which tends (at least where Christianity is concerned) to stoke the flames of the fallacious notion that a dichotomy exists between science and Religion.

Well, I see that Joel hasn’t linked to me since the last article he wrote, so I don’t know if he’s had anything more to say about my last response to him. And to be fair, I also don’t care; it’s nice to engage with people who come knocking on the door, but I’m not going to be bothered to go and chase them down once they depart the area. Joel is, of course, welcome to continue misrepresenting me in his impotent rage — in fact, I would expect no less.

There are just a couple loose ends I wanted to tie up for myself, O Reader, and some thoughts I wanted to collect in one place.

Firstly, Joel responded rather poorly when I suggested that in my view, atheism was a rather peculiar sort of Religion. In his reply, he suggested that the only reason I thought this was that atheism stated an opinion concerning God (or gods), and that because it said something about God it must necessarily be a religion.

Of course, this is an error I could have predicted Joel would make, given his insistence on seeing no particular differences between different religions or denominations thereof. Had he been a little more interested in scholarship in this regard, he would have known what I know, and would have been able to rattle off a good five examples of religious forms that involve no gods (singular or plural) at all. Taoism and Buddhism are perhaps the biggest examples (especially Buddhism, since atheists — Sam Harris, for example — do seem very fond of pointing it out as a deity-free religion), but other examples can be found in various forms of pantheism, panentheism, and Animism. It is quite possible to have a religion without also having a deity of any sort.

So obviously, O Reader, when I talk about atheism as a sort of odd, counter-intuitive quasi-religion, I am not specifically speaking of something which has an opinion on the existence of a deity. My categories are, as I explained, somewhat broader than that — I merely noted that atheism was a philosophical conjecture indefensible by any evidence or theorem (in other words, it has the same inherent weaknesses that my own religion does, if one employs only empirical categories). Atheism is not grounded in facts; it is a “belief” as surely as my own Catholic faith is a belief. Not that there’s any shame in that, of course — belief is an integral part of the human condition, and a key factor in (among other things) every relationship we are in, whether professional, friendly, or romantic. Things like love and trust are acts of faith.

And indeed, the question is not whether we believe, as the atheists would have it. The question is what we believe. We may not believe in God, and we may not believe in many gods. We may not believe that the Bible, the Koran, or the Torah contain the answers we are seeking after. But we may believe that science holds those answers (Joel seems to…). We may believe in reason. We may believe in rationalism. The point is: we all worship something, whether a transcendent divinity or our own wallet and/or genitals.

That is why truly, genuinely non-believing atheism (if it exists) can only, at most, be a temporary fad in the transition between Christianity and whatever belief system follows it down the way, whether that’s the same or another form of Christianity or some sort of paganism. Humanity can’t not believe; it’s in the very fabric of our being to worship. As I’ve noted, the only question is what we will worship. Will we worship what is true, or merely a simulacrum of the truth?

Grace read my responses to Joel over the weekend and noted that he — along with Nicholas, incidentally — seemed to be a very bitter person, and then one who was hurting. I can’t say I disupte the analysis, having read some of the personal entries on Joel’s blog; neither he nor Nicholas seem to be genuinely happy individuals. Moreover, there seems to exist in them a pervasive need in them to spread their unhappiness to others. This is, I have learned through bitter experience, a fairly common feature of atheists (or rather, of those atheists who care to speak up about their atheism) — they are not happy until all around them are unhappy.

And so, to both Joel and Nicholas, Grace and I pose the following questions:

1. What do you feel entitled to?
2. Why do you feel entitled in this way?
3. Why are you so angry/sad/bitter?
4. If you had to define happiness, what would it be to you?

Honestly, the more atheists write in to Time Immortal, the more I pray for them. And no, I don’t necessarily pray for their conversion (although I sometimes do). More often than not, I pray that God helps them with whatever it is that has saddened or embittered them, that they may find a way through it through His guidance, even if they couldn’t be bothered to acknowledge the guidance itself.

Such men as this are to be pitied.

Joel responded fairly quickly to my last post about him. He feels that I’ve missed the point. Interestingly, he doesn’t exactly do a great job of citing an example, preferring instead to approach it thusly:

He’s decided that I think all religions are the same.

Which is not what I said.

My point was that they are all equally crazy. Medicated or not, violent or not, oppressive or not. They are all people who hear voices from dogs. The difference in how far you must stretch believability between Scientology and Christianity is negligible.

(Actually, I think scientology is much more believable)*

I’m not sure how you can deny that.

Equally, O Reader, it could be argued that the statment above isn’t defensible either. It has not been conclusively established that belonging any Religion is a form of being “crazy.” That remains a matter of opinion (obviously not one which I, nor around 5 billion people world-wide — if not more — share).

As to the matter of stretching believeability, there’s still a gulf of difference between believing in Xenu and levels of mental proficiency, and believing in God and Jesus. With all due respect to L. Ron Hubbard, at least a few historical records (from different authors, even!) concerning Jesus’ life. Scientologist fiction might be interesting, to some, but it’s far harder to swallow and accept as factual than are the Gospels.

And the Gospels are better corroborated by external historical sources.

Before we get too far ahead of ourselves, let’s refresh our memories with what Joel said about schizophrenia:

For example, lets suppose I’m schitzophrenic. And I believe that the dog is talking to me telepathically. Would you see any real difference between me and the other schitzophrenic that believes the dog is talking to him vocally?

Now, Joel is kind of trying to have his cake and eat it too; he asserts that I am incorrect in saying that he thinks all religions are the same. And yet, what is he saying above? From here, at least, his statement would seem to be saying that in his view, there isn’t any tangible difference between the two schizophrenics; they are “the same” for all intents and purposes. Except that they aren’t, as he later assures us.

Which is it?

And as much as Joel chides me for missing his point, he has missed mine:

He thinks that, since I don’t believe in god, then thats a religion as well since, of course, it has the word ‘god’ in it.

That is similar to saying I have a significant belief that there is not a gorilla in my closet.

Now, I am not currently looking in my closet, so I suppose there MIGHT be a gorilla in there.

But I have zero reason to believe there is.

Thats one of the tragic mistakes most theists make. They believe that there’s a decision to be made. Do you believe in god or not, in short.

In my experience, it tends to be atheists who adopt the “either/or” stance; most theists I know tend to first approach things from a “both/and” perspective (for example: the dialogue between science and Religion). Now, I admit that I’m the victim of a somewhat biased sample; most of my religious friends are Catholics. And I further admit that where belief in God is concerned, it’s hard to take a “both/and” stance — if one doesn’t believe in God, one can hardly be said to believe in God, can one?

Still, in my experience, it is atheists who tend to prefer dichotomy.

To be fair, I have talked about atheism — being just one more entrant on the spectrum of beliefs — from an angle that suggests decision-making. And I do think that there is a decision to be made. But it is not whether to believe, because belief is an unavoidable part of the human condition. We are all believers, even if we aren’t all members of religions according to the dictionary definition of the word.

The question is what we believe. We may not believe in God, and we may not believe in many gods. We may not believe that the Bible, the Koran, or the Torah contain the answers we are seeking after. But we may believe that science holds those answers. We may believe in reason. We may believe in rationalism. The point is: we all worship something, whether a transcendent divinity or our own wallet and/or genitals.

That is why truly, genuinely non-believing atheism (if it exists) can only, at most, be a temporary fad in the transition between Christianity and whatever belief system follows it down the way, whether that’s the same or another form of Christianity or some sort of paganism. Humanity can’t not believe; it’s in the very fabric of our being to worship. As I’ve noted, the only question is what we will worship. Will we worship what is true, or merely a simulacrum of the truth?

And here’s the rub: we all believe in things that “the evidence” cannot explain. Joel’s atheism is no grounded in empirical realities than is my Catholicism, and I do hope that Joel can appreciate that just because something is not “seen” does not mean that it is not real; it may mean that we lack the means to see it. The point, then, is that atheism is as much a “faith” — in the sense of being a philosophical conjecture and a belief in a metaphysical reality (or, perhaps more correctly, the lack thereof) that cannot be defended from evidence. It’s not necessarily accurate to call it a religion, but neither is it wholly inaccurate to do so.

Consider:

I don’t actively think there isn’t a gorilla in my closet. It would be INSANE to think that I had to make a choice about whether or not there’s a big old beastie in my closet. The default position is for me to not believe in such a thing in such a place. Assuming that my bedroom isn’t part of the gorilla migratory pattern.

No one would say that one of my characteristics is that I believe my closet to be gorilla-free.

This is technically true. Equally, though, the fact that there is no gorilla in Joel’s closet does not mean that there are no gorillas. And the presence or absence, in Joel’s closet, of something we have the capability to detect with one or more of our five senses says nothing at all about the presence or absence of something we lack the capability to detect in the same area.

Nor, would anyone say, as a another example, that a significant trait I hold is that I don’t believe squirrels talk, or that my mother walks through walls, or that men rise from the dead.

These are, I think we can agree, aberrations from the norm. Without evidence to say that these aberrations are occuring, the default position is that they aren’t happening. But given that this is the default, the significant aspect is choosing to believe in them.

The norm is to not.

Of course, you can’t have these conversations with many theists because they believe there is evidence of god. No one has shown me any.

There is one word, I think, that applies to Joel’s beliefs here: Positivism. I’ve written about that many, many times, and see no need to re-hash prior content here. Suffice to say that if Joel’s atheism is based primarily on a lack of empirical evidence for faith, his atheism is weak indeed, and possessed of a fundamental illogic.

And as I have noted above, the fact that we don’t have evidence for a thing does not necessarily mean that the thing in question does not exist; equally, we may lack the ability to perceive or otherwise detect the thing. Certainly that was true of atoms until recently, and most stellar phenomena as well. Over time, we have developed methods of seeing those things, but other things yet remain unobserved: gravitational waves, for example, or the Higgs boson. Or, for that matter, extraterrestrial life. Perhaps, in time, we will observe these things as well. Then again, perhaps we won’t ever observe them directly.

The existence of a thing is independent of whether we have seen it. If there are aliens on some planet way out there in the depths of space, we don’t know it. But if we (and they) die out before either of us ever has the chance to meet the other, that does not mean that we both did not exist, does it?

Yes, there isn’t any hard evidence for the existence of God or Jesus — not anymore, at least, since Jesus hasn’t taken an Earthly stroll in nearly two thousand years. But then, if there were evidence, it wouldn’t be “faith,” would it?

They only thing they ever do is show examples of things we can’t explain…yet.

But they don’t like that last word.

These closing sentences of his illustrate, yet again, why Joel’s refusal to distinguish between different religions and/or denominations thereof hampers his ability to argue effectively. Methinks that he is too used to debating Evangelicals — personally, I take no issue with the word “yet” (as in, say, “Christ has not returned…yet,” perhaps?). It is, after all, just a word to describe a possible future.

Joel also seems to assume, erroneously, that a dichotomy exists between the sciences and religion, and seems to assume that given sufficient time, science will enable us to completely do away with religion. Obviously, I don’t share that viewpoint; there is no inherent contradition between religion and science, and in fact both are pathways of revelation. And as science continues to discover new and exciting things, I do not find my faith weakend — if anything, it is strenghtened as I become better able to comprehend the magnificence of the works that God has wrought.

We cannot know everything about how God works in the Universe, but it does serve to note that there is nothing to say that God, having built the Universe in a certain way, cannot effect his plans for the Universe and those living in it via the natural processes that are at work within creation. There is nothing to say that God didn’t forge humanity out of successive generations of progressively more complex lifeforms. Nor is there anything that says that God, having devised gravity, could not have used gravity to fabricate the stars and planets that now pepper the cosmos.

Atheists seem to expect that everything about God necessarily has to involve whiz-bangs and lightshows. It isn’t necessarily always so.

* perhaps this statement tells us all we need to know?

Joel writes in again with some additional commentary. While I usually excerpt messages in their entirety, I’m going to respond to this one in a more “interlinear” fashion, as it covers several points in brief, and I feel these would be best responded to “in the moment.”

Here’s sort of my point.

I’m not a car guy. If you tell me technical things about your car, I probably don’t care and don’t udnerstand. Mileage, sure, but cam shafts? Nope.

This is a fair enough standpoint for as far as it goes, but there are certain limitations to it as well. I too, O Reader, am not a “car guy” — as long as the car gets up and runs, I’m not all that interested in the technical details of what is under the hood. On the flip side, I am a “computer guy” — I’m obsessive about the ins and outs of computers. I am also a “camera guy” — I’m obsessive about the inner workings of all manner of digital imaging devices, cameras first and foremost. I love Photography.

The astute Reader will note that, in keeping with my interests and areas of expertise, I often discuss computers and cameras on this site. The Reader will also note that I never discuss cars on this site. That is because I do not wish to be caught up in an obvious attempt to exceed my “academic authority”; I don’t want to discuss things I have not made at least some attempt to become familiar with at a level above “basic.”

Reciprocally, if I enter into a discussion about something on another person’s website, I take pains to become familiar with the issue at hand at a higher level than “passing familiarity” — I try to learn at least a few “technical things” before I begin to comment on a subject.

It would, I think, be more than a little boorish and arrogant to enter into a higher-level discussion at The Car Blog without first taking pains to become somewhat familiar with the inner workings of an automobile, or at least the ins and outs of the auto industry. Similarly, it is more than a little boorish and arrogant to enter into a higher-level discussion of religion on a blog that is open about its religious foundation if one is not prepared to discuss, in detail, the distinctions between different Religions or denominations thereof. Especially when the discussion is, in part, about the validity of a religious conjecture and its application to everyday life.

Bitching about Fords because one’s Chevolet blew a gasket is meaningless, silly, and irrational. Bitching about religion without bothering to engage or acknowledge the substantial differences in “technical details” between religions or religious denominations is likewise meaningless, silly, and irrational.

That Joel is opting for an approach which I have just finished describing as meaningless, silly, and irrational is somewhat disappointing, especially because Joel himself seems to be a nice enough guy as far as correspondence goes. One hates to speak in generalities, but this sort of presumptive arrogance — the assumption that one can freely and openly pronounce all manner of things about religion while at the same time refusing to engage such technical details as, say, the differences between the Mu’tazilah and Ash’ari schools of Islamic theology — is something one has come to expect from atheists.

In some contexts, I might care about the distinctions between Mormons and Catholics and so on. For example, if we were debating how best to alter relationships between governments and various christian denominations, the centralized power of the catholic church versus the more decentralized authority of protestants (if I’m getting that
right) might be relevant.

But in the context of this discussion (who proseletyzes and who doesn’t) the various denominations are virtually identical. You all believe in a supernatural sky-god and his divine son. Whether christ rose bodily or only in spirit are not particularly relevant (as an
example).

This is, O Reader, exactly what I’m getting at — the second paragraph, in particular, drips with all manner of presumptive arrogance that describes absolutely nothing about the reality of the situation.

To his credit, Joel does note a key difference between most flavours of Protestantism and Catholicism — Catholic teaching flows through a centralized office of doctrine, whereas Protestant teaching tends not to have any such central doctrinal body.

But any credibility that suggestion might have leant to his argument is all but destroyed by the paragraph following it (to quote XKCD: “while the author’s wildly swerving train of thought did at one point flirt with coherence, this brief encounter was more likely a chance event…”).

It would be enough to simply laugh off as inconsequential any argument that attempts to framework an objection to religion by beginning with the observation that “the various denominations are virtually identical” (despite the fact that in my previous response to Joel, I pointed out how seemingly minor differences between some Christian denominations are, in fact, rather large gulfs of difference when considered in light of what Christ actually taught. Add in even a brief consideration of religious denominations from other, non-Christian religions, and the absurdity of Joel’s claim becomes readily apparent.

As to specific beliefs, as I have pointed out, these are the most important thing at issue in the discussion of who proselytizes, because virtually every Western philosophy proselytizes (including, as I have noted, atheism). Several Eastern philosophies do likewise. And when everyone proselytizes, the issue of who does it becomes less relevant than the issue of what each evangelist is offering — in terms of philosophy, teaching, and doctrine — to those he or she is attempting to convert.

I don’t believe in a “sky god,” for example; I believe in a God who transcends the physical limitations of our empirical Universe. Nor do I believe God is wholly “invisible” any more than I am invisible. That I do not always see God no more means He is invisible than it means that I am invisible because some farmer in Africa cannot see me with his own eyes. If I cannot see God, it is because I lack the capacity to see Him, not because He cannot be seen.

And here Joel again demonstrates the fundamental illogic at the center of his argument, for already he has made an assumption that is incorrect. Were I a Hindu attempting to win a friend over to my faith, I would not regale him or her with tales of a solitary sky god. Hinduism is a polytheistic faith (or, perhaps more accurately, a henotheistic faith); my discussion with my friend would center primarily on the supremacy of Ishvara, but would also verge into discussions of Brahma and Vishnu, and perhaps even into talk of Shiva, the destroyer. We would talk about Dharma, Samsara, Karma, and Moshka.

And even if we only talked about Ishvara and his primacy as God, above other deities, we would still not be talking about a “sky god,” because Ishvara is, alternatively, interpreted as being without a fixed realm of any kind, or as incorporating all creation into his realm (Hinduism, then, also flirts with pantheism and panentheism at times).

Moreover, were a Muslim attempting to evangelize me, he or she would run into a major brick wall by insisting that God is unary and solitary (that is, arguing that there is no God but Allah, and that the Christian Trinity is actually a form of polytheism — that’s something which is specifically stated in the Koran). Muslims say “God is One” while Christians say “God is One but also Three.” It’s not the same thing, despite the fact that from the outside it all looks like monotheism.

To say nothing of the fact that were I not a Christian, my evangelism would have absolutely nothing to do with Christ or the notion that He died and rose from the dead, except perhaps in the sense that I would be attempting to refute that claim.

To briefly summarize, then: we’re not a third of the way through Joel’s one sentence, and already there are gaping holes in the logic.

Continuing on, Joel is right: I do believe in God’s divine Son, Christ Jesus, who died and rose again. Joel seems to dismiss as a minor issue the debate as to whether Christ rose literally or only in spirit, and in so doing betrays his ignorance yet again. For as St. Paul reminds us, if Christ did not literally rise from the grave then the Christian faith is meaningless, and Christians are fools who are to be most pitied. Victory over death in spirit alone is no victory at all.

And were I, a Catholic, attempting to evangelize someone, the literal nature of Christ’s resurrection would be a very big issue indeed, if in fact it came up as a subject for debate. One cannot deny the bodily resurrection of Christ and be a Christian…not, that is, if one is honest with oneself.

*shrug* again, my basic point was, and remains, Christians run the U.S., as a rule, if there’s a crossing of church and state, it involves some flavor of christianity. My atheism may hold all religions in much the same light (at least in that I believe they are
all equally delusional), but its Christianity that most often causes problems here. On a global scale, certainly, in this timeframe, radical Islam is a much bigger threat.

As I have before, O Reader, I observe that in a nation where over 70% of the population is Christian, it should come as no surprise that Christians should have a high level of participation in an elected, ostensibly “representative” government. That’s not to say that Christians “run” America, however…at least, not in the sinister, “implication of looming Christian theocracy” sense of the term that Joel’s statement would seem to be implying.

If one went to Sweden and complained that white people “run Sweden,” or that one’s objection to white people in government was in any way based on the fact that the majority of Swedish politicians were white, one would rightly be derided as a laughingstock. Sweden is a Caucasian nation — it is really only to be expected that its government would have a lot of white people in it.

Similarly, it is meaningless to complain about the quantity of Christians in government in a nation where most people are Christian, unless one is openly advocating that only persons of a secular bent should be allowed to govern a nation. In a nation like the U.S., which prides itself upon its representative democracy, such a notion is unthinkable.

I do, though, believe that all religions should be treated equally. In the U.S., for example, I don’t believe that schools should have Hannukah celebrations but not Xmas ones, etc.

That’s about as open-minded as anyone could be asked to be; personally, I do see value in people learning about the traditions of other religions. I would agree that all religions should be treated equally, for the most part — I disagree, obviously, that all religions are equal. And for the record, I include atheism in the previous sentence when I say “religion,” because it is as much a metaphysical conjecture as is my own Catholicism.

Sorry if this email seems random, its something of an unfortunate and scattered day here.

I am genuinely sorry to hear that. I will pray that Joel will find the strength to move past the pitfalls and confusion of today, and I encourage the good Reader to do the same.

Count Roland writes in with some thoughts about some recent promotional material for a series we both enjoy watching — Battlestar Galactica. While the picture itself dates back to a promotional campaign that the SciFi Channel ran back in January of this year, I haven’t really commented on the image….well…because let’s face it: rip-offs of the famous painting of Christ and the apostles sitting at the table are a dime a dozen.

Have you seen the picture on scifi.com’s BSG page? It is The Last Supper but with Caprica Six presiding and BSG characters attending. I was surprised to see it, but it seems to be in some taste - not raunchy, say - and it would seem to be in jest. Especially since the Cylons are the monotheists and Caprica saved them from their destructive path (sort of…).

I wonder, O Writer, if this would generate problems and if it generates less than the homosexual parody, then perhaps the Muslim response is made at least more understandable if not condonable. If we react less harshly to fiction than doctrine parodies, perhaps they react more strongly for dogma than we do for doctrine.

But wait, fiction, such as The Satanic Verses, has caused quite vehement response too. Perhaps the dogma of “Islam and Muhammad are always right” creates a great deal more fiction than our dogmas, the creeds for Christians and some others, such as inspiration of Scripture not specifically mentioned in the creeds. Maybe , too, our dogma of love impels us to a different response than the dogma of shame and retribution.

Here’s the picture to which Roland is referring, just for reference (corrected — oops!):