Reflections From a Murky Pond

On September 11, 2001, 19 Muslim terrorists hijacked four airliners. They crashed two into the World Trade Center and one into the Pentagon. The fourth was crashed into a field near Shanksville, PA when the American passengers on board counterattacked the terrorists and stormed the plane’s cockpit.

In total 2974 people – and the 19 Muslim terrorists – died in the vicious terrorist attacks upon America that day.

Always Remember; Never forget; Never Forgive

Remember our dead, mostly civilians murdered by foul vermin who hated America and whose misborn brethren still walk upon this Earth in a cruel mockery of mankind. We must wreak a final vengeance upon their murderers’ ilk. But, even more, we must ensure that our children and our children’s children will not have to fear a similar slaughtering.

Remember the brave Americans who, not targeted directly in the attacks, through themselves in harms way to save as many victims as they could. We must always honor those firemen, police officers, and un-uniformed civilians who cast caution to the winds for sake of the country and countrymen.

Remember our men and women in the military. They were and are both our sword of vengeance and our shield against the Muslim terrorists and Islamic regimes that support them. Putting their lives on the line, they to this day do the horrid, bloody work of eradicating the menace that we face so that we can go about our lives in relative peace and safety.

Remember those nations who lent aid to us in our time of catastrophe and those who, through generosity and human solidarity, who joined with America to bring retribution to our common foes and purge their stain from the planet. These foreign nations, not all longtime allies of America, came together with us in a righteous cause and should be honored in our thoughts and prayers.

May the Gods bless America with Vision to find those who have wronged us and murdered among us, with the strength of Arm to chastise them and bring them before the Gods for judgment, and the Will to use our Vision and our the strength of our Arm wreak our retribution upon our enemies and bring them low and into dust.

But remember also those who live within our country and enjoy its benefits who blamed America for these terrorist attacks. Remember those who said this was our fault and that we should be damned and burned for our supposed evil. Remember always that they lent their support to those who would murder our children with animalistic glee. They should not be free from our retribution; they deserve our wrath even more than the creatures who attacked us.

But remember also those who in our country who have more in common with the Muslim terrorists than they do with the people of America who not only stayed silent, refusing to condemn their brethren’s villainy, but used the crisis and its aftermath to further their own agenda within America. These things deserve no tolerance and no compassion; they are the enemies of mankind and should be exterminated lest they, through “paper terrorism” and propaganda do what their compatriots couldn’t do by violent action.

Always remember; never forget, neither the good nor the evil; never ever forgive.

Is there such a thing as a moral Atheist? The short answer is no, there truly isn’t nor can there be a truly moral Atheist. The phrase “Moral Atheist” is inherently wrong and impossible at its core.

The term is incorrect, but – despite the rantings of some theist “hardliners” – it is not an oxymoron. It is not an inherently self-contradictory term.

“Moral Atheist” is not linguistically similar to “Jumbo Shrimp,” “Unbiased Opinion,” “Idiot Savant,” or “Civil War.” It would require that Atheists be inherently immoral – a direct contradiction – for the phrase “Moral Atheist” to be an oxymoron. Such is not categorically the case with Atheists.

Atheists can be quite ethical; their behaviors may even fall into line with those set forth by moral codes. But such things do not make the Atheist a moral individual. Ethics stem from within the individual and, lacking any religion or belief in a higher authority than Man, Atheists lack the capacity for morality though at times their actions and beliefs can, and very often do, coincide with those of moral people. Any intersection between Atheists’ ethics and morality is largely either coincidental or based upon purely pragmatic concerns.

Please note that the above statement does not hold true for Buddhists. They have faith in a divine cosmos with Right and Wrong, but do not believe in a manifest Divine Presence.

Aside from the Buddhists though, if you show me an Atheist is believes in Right & Wrong beyond personal preference or cultural dictates, I’ll show you a person who – in the stillness of the night with no sounds save the beating of their pulse into their pillow – is an Agnostic. 😉

Atheists can only derive sanction or prohibition for their actions from within themselves and/or from the dictates of the society and culture that they live within. That – despite the ranting of Atheist and Anti-Theist “hardliners” – is not morality, not in any true or absolute sense of the word.

Read the rest of this entry »

 
Did the young Arab girl A’isha weep when Muhammad mounted her and tore though her virginity and any semblance of innocence she might have retained at that point? Did she cry bitter tears when, at the age of nine (some apologists say 12 – 14) the middle-aged founder of Islam first used her?

Humanity will never know; it’s never been a safe question ask.  The mere allusion to Muhammad’s debased pedophilia is enough to get one savagely murdered in some noisome quarters of the world. Soon it may be risky across the globe if mankind falters and the Islamists get their way.

I think it safe to say that at least one of the young girls going though this same rape and torment in this supposedly enlightened age will be weeping, screaming, and pleading for her “husband” to stop when he gets the urge to rut in her. Sadly, her cries will be unheeded by the vermin on top of her, the rest of the nest of them around her, and seemingly most of mankind as well, who will shake their heads but take no action beyond that.

A Saudi mother is expected to appeal a judge’s ruling after he once again refused to let her 8-year-old daughter divorce a 47-year-old man, a relative said.

Sheikh Habib Al-Habib made the ruling Saturday in the Saudi city of Onaiza. Late last year, he rejected a petition to annul the marriage.

The case, which has drawn criticism from local and international rights groups, came to light in December when Al-Habib declined to annul the marriage on a legal technicality. His dismissal of the mother’s petition sparked outrage and made headlines around the world.

The judge said the mother, who is separated from the girl’s father, was not the legal guardian and therefore could not represent her daughter, the mother’s lawyer, Abdullah al-Jutaili, said at the time.

The girl’s husband pledged not to consummate the marriage until the girl reaches puberty, according to al-Jutaili, who added that the girl’s father arranged the marriage to settle his debts with the man, who is considered “a close friend.”

In March, an appeals court in the Saudi capital of Riyadh declined to certify the original ruling, in essence rejecting al-Habib’s verdict, and sent the case back to al-Habib for reconsideration.

Under the Saudi legal process, the appeals court ruling meant that the marriage was still in effect, but that a challenge to the marriage was still ongoing.

The relative, who said the girl’s mother will continue to pursue a divorce, told CNN the judge “stuck by his earlier verdict and insisted that the girl could petition the court for a divorce once she reached puberty.”

The appeals court in Riyadh will take up the case again and a hearing is scheduled for next month, according to the relative.

Child marriages have made news in Saudi Arabia in the past year.

In a statement issued shortly after the original verdict, the Society of Defending Women’s Rights in Saudi Arabia said the judge’s decision went against children’s “basic rights.”

Marrying children makes them “lose their sense of security and safety,” the group said. “Also, it destroys their feeling of being loved and nurtured. It causes them a lifetime of psychological problems and severe depression.”

Zuhair al-Harithi, a spokesman for the Saudi Human Rights Commission, a government-run group, told CNN that his organization was fighting child marriages.

“Child marriages violate international agreements that have been signed by Saudi Arabia and should not be allowed,” al-Harithi said.

Child marriage is not unusual, said Christoph Wilcke, a Saudi Arabian researcher for the international group Human Rights Watch, after the initial verdict.

“We’ve been hearing about these types of cases once every four or five months because the Saudi public is now able to express this kind of anger, especially so when girls are traded off to older men,” Wilcke told CNN.

— Mohammed Jamjoom
Reporting for  CNN, April 12, 2009

This is the sort of thing that humans find sickening. Some misborn mockery of a man can’t pay his debts, so he sells off his daughter to another subhuman piece of filth for the purpose of slaking its perverted lusts.

When the girl pleads for protection from the upcoming serial rape, what passes for a court system in Saudi Arabia declares that she’s too young to understand divorce and so must remain “married” to the vermin until she reaches puberty.

That’s Arabs for you. The girl’s too young to understand divorce, but not too young to be bred by some sweating, filthy, creature who mocks mankind by his piss poor aping of them.

And, of course, when the girl’s mother tries to get the Saudi courts to see something akin to reason, Sheikh Habib Al-Habib declares that she has no standing with the court and that the state-sanctioned rape and enslavement of her daughter will proceed.

Of course, under Shari’a – the law as laid down by Muhammad – such villainy is fully condoned, so one must expect any mouthings issued from the maws of al-Qummal like Sheikh Habib Al-Habib to fully support pedophilia and the selling of young girls into bondage.

While this is something that everyone has come to expect from what the Arabs try to pass off as their “civilization,” one has to – if one is human and possessed of reason and morality – wonder why it must be, albeit tacitly, condoned by mankind.

Would it not be better if mankind rid itself of this infestation and the diseases of both flesh and spirit that it carries?

That we as members of a society must judge the actions of others is a fact. While there is no need – beyond the pragmatic or utilitarian level – to “pass judgment” upon a person or his actions, we must judge the import of those actions and frame them in the context of their intent and within the framework of the other person’s goals in order to predict future behaviors and their possible effect upon us.

The question arise though – how do we judge another’s intent and goals? What scales do you use to derive our measurements? Do we weigh the actions of others on our own scales of malice, or do we weigh them on what we can perceive of their scales of malice?

For he is very wise, and weighs all things to a nicety in the scales of this malice. But the only measure that he knows is desire, desire for power; and so he judges all hearts. Into his heart the thought will not enter that any will refuse it.

— Gandalf
J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Fellowship of the Ring, p. 203

It a common thought that we judge others by own desires and from solely within our own framework of goals and perceptions – or at least it’s a common rebuttal in many arguments. Somehow I doubt this assertion is anywhere near universal in its accuracy.

I think it is important for people to determine by which and whose scales they judge the actions and malice of others though.

Our Scales:

If we are judging the actions of others based upon what we would do in a similar circumstance, then our judgment is bound to be very subjective. It also would, at that point, say as much or more about ourselves as it does about the object of our judgment.

It would also be a flawed basis for judgment in many cases. People are not all the same and – beyond the primal needs – do not necessarily have similar motivations. By judging others only by own goals we leave ourselves open to being outmaneuvered by our enemies, as the quoted passage above asserts.

Still, it’s a consistent framework for judgment and one that can be rapidly brought to bear on a situation. Therefor it is not wholly lacking in merit – if one accepts its limitations and plans accordingly.

Their Scales:

If we are judging the actions others based upon their own goals and capabilities, then our judgment is not going to be subjective in the same manner as if we judged based on what we would do in the same or similar circumstances. The subjectivity would be more a case of targeting the assessment to the situation and individuals or groups involved.

It would also be a basis of judgment that has to be predicated on either prior knowledge of the individuals or groups involved or a high degree of empathy. Lacking a sufficient amount of either would render judgment based upon their intent, goals, capabilities flawed to the point of uselessness.

Still, it has the capacity for greater accuracy than basing one’s judgment on ones’ own intent, goals, capabilities. Therefor it is not wholly lacking in merit – if one accepts its limitations and plans accordingly.

It is certainly beyond me to determine which framework of judgment is better in the long run; I’m not even sure if either one is better than the other in an overall manner. Both scales of malice, internal and external, have the strengths and weaknesses.

It is not beyond my capabilities though to conclude that it is best to know, or at least consider, by which one – or at what level of combination – one is assessing the ramifications and intent of others’ actions in any given situation.

OK, it’s truly a moot point, but this cartoon bring up a very relevant point and possibility – if in a completely Liberal-biased – and/or amoral – and sarcastic fashion. Leaving aside the Liberal’s propaganda of folding embryonic stem cell (ESC) research into the larger field of stem cell research, it’s a valid point that a moral person should question whether or not they’re willing to accept treatments derived from the destruction of human embryos.

Perhaps it’s a fair and necessary compromise that all medical advances and procedures arising from the destruction of human embryos be labeled as such so that those people with moral objections to murder being used to further science can conscientiously object to such treatments.

One wonders if the Liberals would be in favor of such a compromise because of a hope that the people with ethical and moral objections to killing human embryos would die off sooner, or if these Liberals would decry such a labeling as being stigmatizing and prejudicial and fear that free market pressures would scuttle the treatments – as they have repeatedly done during the last eight years.