Oh the ULC is church offering free ordinations to anybody for anything. No strings attached. Nothing religious required. They’ve been around long before the internet even.
You got the style of a preacher, so make yourself Rev. Zackary Lyle, start up your own religion. Make it science-based. anti-entropy based or something. Just a thought.
Not being facetious either. Maybe you have the nerve I haven’t got yet. Years ago, on a lark, I became Reverend Kenneth Udut – printed out the diploma and everything. I figure one day I’ll get the nerve to start my own religion for real. Told a couple of friends while I was doing it and they became ministers too. No idea if any of them them did anything with it.
But a lot of ppl do. Look up ULC and you’ll find a bunch.
Just think how effective it’d be: Turn science into a religion and you’ve just owned religion.
They’re embracing what Islam is under a secular state : another religion. Similar to how the West embraced Buddhism in the late 50s/60s : the version that came over is a Zen Buddhism “Lite”. Bowdlerized, removed of any ‘unpleasantries’.
Islam under a secular state is similar to Christianity under a secular state : think Methodists or Unitarians or Episcopals. No sense of theocracy, just people following traditions that matter to them.
So, that’s the approach they’re taking. They’d see a sharp distinction between Islam in a country under Al Qaeda’s version of Sharia Law vs Islam in a country under Common Law.
But there is Islamophobia. It’s a stupid word but it’s a real thing. That’s not to say that all critical discussion of Islam as implemented in a theocracy is Islamophobia but is there irrational prejudice against Muslims in Western countries?
Sure there is. That’s what they’re talking about when they use the stupid term.
When Western women wear a hijab “in solidarity” with Muslims, the Muslims they’re in solidarity with are not the terrorists or the Sharia law but in solidarity with the women who are under oppressive regimes *as well as* making a statement against discrimination against Muslims in Western countries.
Of course there’s the Progressive version of Starbucks regular who see the hijab as fashionable and talking positively about Islam as a way to piss off their parents. But does that lead to radicalized converts? Hardly. The Starbucks doesn’t leave them.
I’m ok with a change in topic. “Islamophobia” was highlighted, being in quotes, so that appeared to be your focus, so that is where I focused. But I can shift.
It’s ok Steven. These are hot topics and sometimes it’s easy to forget the person you’re talking to and instead see them as “representative” of a particular ideology rather than an individual.
I’ve done it to you. You’ve done it to me. It happens and we got past it because we’re both striving towards a greater rationality in our discourse.
You’ll have to assist me in comprehending the core teachings you speak of. I was raised Methodist but my mother married a Muslim man (Egyptian) for two years in the early 80s. She still carries his last name to this day.
I’ve only had positive engagements with Islam, the negative Islam I see as equivalent to the Westboro Baptist church in style — if the Westboro Baptist church ever gained real numbers, followers, and militarization that is.
But I’m willing to be corrected. My narrative developed through my experiences and formed my biases.
I look forward to some assistance here, as there seems to have been people my whole life that are telling an entirely different story than I know and it’s always confused me.
I work from this assumption: The secular state is superior to a theocracy (of any kind).
When there is a theocracy, there’s trouble.
So, in my mind, I distinguish between theocracies and secular states. Islam in a secular state is fine. Islam in a theocracy is bad. [to put it simply].
[the only exception is Byzantium but I have a special place in my heart for Byzantium]
Sadly, many of these arguments can (and have been) levied against Christianity as well. This does not justify Islam’s use of these things but it does show some similarities.
Regarding point a)
“. A part of this framework is granting followers the ability to deceive the people of their target kingdom as a means to further spread the ideology without breaking the ideological code so to speak. ”
There’s precedence for deceit and conquest within Christendom. If you ever read the many anti-religious tracts by radical atheists (who themselves are looking to convert people to THEIR cause), they have their lists they drag out to prove it, many of which involving Paul.
Yet, I know of one myself, part of the Christian tradition regarding deceit from John Chrysostom in the 5th century:
” “Do you see the advantage of deceit? …
For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind …
And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived.”
– Chrysostom, Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1. ‘
This “lying for a greater purpose” is as embedded within Christendom as it is in Islam.
This doesn’t justify it but it shows a lack of uniqueness .
I’m not silencing you or the discussion, just bringing up a point.
But your last comment redirects properly to the REASON for the discussion about Islam in the first place:
a) There is terrorism.
b) The primary sources of terrorist activities are from radical Islam and communism.
This does not include domestic terrorism in the USA but that would be shifting goalposts so I’ll avoid that.
From the first article, this line from the author jumps out:
“We must show the fanatics that they cannot win because we will not lose.”
This is a hard position to hold.
The USA has been in the losing end of many conflicts since WW2. Going through generational studies, one of the possible reasons why the “Silent generation” was so silent, why they kept their heads down and just followed the crowd, is that they felt inadequate. “Their war” – which was Korea, was a horrid loss. The “We can’t possibly lose” from WW2 was shattered at that point.
Further shattering of morale for “we will not lose” is Vietnam.
Carry on through the 80s / 90s / 00s and 10s… and from a certain perspective, this sense of “We should disengage from all conflict because we won’t win” has followed us through time.
I’d say that the major exceptions were some of the successes under George W but they were short lived.
So, it’s a hard stance to justify.
1/2 of the country may get that attitude:
For Patriotism, we have Trump who is happily signing everything on the Republican Congress’ wishlist.
It’s the best we’re going to get for now.
He’s going to have a hard time winning people over though.
It’s _possible_ but he needs a few more reality checks and a little less Bill O’Reilly to get there.
Islam had hope through to the late 1980s. Turkey was becoming the first Middle-Eastern Europe. When my mother was in Egypt in 1984, tourism was huge and there was a healthy mix of Middle East and Western together, with French fashion being the rage and her American sneakers not. [within a day, she realized her New Balance sneakers looked like nurse’s shoes – big and clunky, so she stopped wearing them].
But something happened in the 90s and kept happening… and keeps happening…
Oh you have to go to Nixon for the Saudi’s and OPEC. Clinton was just continuing a long (by then) tradition.
The thing about the Saudis: If we want a stable dollar, we need the Saudis. Simple as that.
If we’re willing to deal with a potentially long period of uncertainty with ANOTHER currency ruling the world economy, then we can break our ties with them.
This is where Trump’s plan *could* work. Could. Maybe. Dunno. But it is going to take a MAJOR shift in the axis of powers on the planet.
We have to go isolationist but not entirely. We need China. We need Mexico. We need *some* Western allies.
Russia’s not the best choice of trading partner: They got their own huge financial problems and will drain us if we let them latch onto us.
Going independent is *possible* but extremely risky. We’ll have the crack open our soil and waters everywhere to get sources of crude and gas and coal. No stone unturned.
Other countries have to crack open their soil to get decent oil surpluses to compete on the world stage against the dollar.
But if we lose the dollar-as-defacto substitute-for-oil currency and it becomes the PetroYen or PetroRuble… we’d better be ready.
It’s possible but it could be extremely messy for a long time to come, and it means we won’t be a world power quite so much anymore.
Whoever controls the currency, controls the planet. Everybody else is just trying to match up. So, it’s a dangerous game.
That someone else will have to be China. Nobody else is as strong and stable as them. We *were* but over the past two years, we’ve been sliding down due to the campaign cycle. We’re unstable politically, looks bad on the world stage and they know it, because it is. We’re unstable.
This is good for some investors in the short term, as political uncertainties bring investment opportunities, waves of bubbles of hope to ride and then jump off before they crash, over and over again.
But in the long term, we gotta be very very ready.
I’m glad the TPP is dead but it was unfortunately our last hope to remain a world power of influence.
Putin couldn’t have helped Greece. He’s land-grabbing… well, mostly teasing NATO, forcing their hand. “Eww, Putin wants Greece? no no, we’ll take Greece”.
I think the Republicans are banking on a war economy.. I think they’d hoped for a cold war economy but that’s up in the air at the moment, although Trump seems to be warming up to it a little. [it almost doesn’t matter – Congress has been determined to make it Russia since May 2016 and they will]
Still, if you add in a temporary “strange bedfellows” between Russian and USA to “turn the middle east into glass”… well, I’d be ashamed to be an American anymore at that point, but regardless, it could lead to “another way” to accomplish a war economy.
Whichever path is taken, Russia or Middle East, a war is inevitable. I’m just hoping it’s a…. “reasonable war” (I can’t believe I’m using those words together… but I’m trying to stay objective here) – and not a WW3 situation.
But “Peace through show of strength” is an act of desperation, a sign of inherent weakness politically. I just hope they don’t blow it.
I’d be sad if we bet the farm on a full-scale Middle East war. At least a Cold War Part Two situation is a well known, well read playbook on both sides. Each side knows what to do.
But this is uncharted territory, a veritable war of Christianity vs Islam. It’s a place we haven’t been in for 800 years.
[the breakup of Islamic countries at the beginning of the 20th century was under different circumstances entirely… and the West broke a butt ton of promises along the way. The Ottoman Empire fell quietly by trusting promises made by the West.. much as how Communism fell via similar promises… also unkept…
…so, I dunno.
It’s an interesting future timeline, although I try to avoid *too much* of the doomsday stuff. It strikes me as amplifications and reiterations of pre-2007 events, things that wouldn’t be too surprising, just as future predictions involving the Soviets seemed quite reasonable prior to the fall of Soviets. So I have to take it with a grain of salt and with some hope for this not being our future.
That was funny to read actually. A female president _is_ an inevitability so it could eventually work out that way, although a lot of the rhetoric during the campaign cycle against her was quite likely fueled by these very same predictions – an attempt to make for self-fulfilling prophecies. Still, it was effective, although a Republican win was just about a guarentee, no matter who ran.
She didn’t show up enough. Too cocky. Surrounded by “yes” people. They neglected key states entirely, basing everything on statistics of the past rather than actually paying attention. Trump paid attention and ran with whatever was handed him, right or wrong and declared it boldly. [he played along with “Lock Her up” because it was popular. Once he won, he was like, “You know it was just jokes guys, right hehe”, and people loved him for that too. He charms those who he charms.
My concern is with the Congress anyway, not Trump. They’re getting their wishlists checked off by a guy who wants their support for *his* pet projects. And.. it’sll work.
He only has to play his show to 1/2 of America, the important figures in that 1/2 are the majority in Congress and 31 Governors. It’s enough for him to get done what he wants to see.
I’ve been an on-again, off again fan of NiN for a long time. But my metal-ish days were mostly over after Guns ‘n Roses as metal started to get more political and intellectual. But I still kept 1/2 a listen through the years.