KNOWLEDGE
My Battle for ‘The Truth’ with an Evangelical Jarhead – Thoughts on Religious Fanaticism and My Chances at Heaven
Leave a Comment
On Twitter for the last few days, a self-proclaimed ‘radical Christian evangelizer’ (also a Marine) by the name of @Vanburenjrmr and I have been exchanging serious blows on our thoughts of Islam, Christianity, religion, terrorism, and the general outlook on life alone. My elders and mentors tell me not to even interact with such morons, but how could I resist? People like this must be confronted for the sake of humanity.
Before I get into the details, I must say that I tricked him (inadvertently) into thinking that I was a Muslim. He probably figured I was one because I appeared to be defending Islam, when all I was really doing was dissecting every single foolish, ignorant, and sometimes psychotic comment he made (actually, 95% were psychotic). We often battled on what ‘the truth’ meant – he arguing that Christianity and The Bible was ‘the truth’, while I argued in the Socratic Method (‘I know I do not know’) with a pinch of anti-religious sentiment.
Actually, I lied to you. I do know that I know (just this one thing, I swear). I know that @Vanburenjrmr is an ignorant, intolerant, and bigoted danger to society. I also know he is completely retarded for even assuming that he knows what ‘the truth’ is (ignorance?). The whole ordeal began when I called him an ‘idiot’.
I told him ‘the country was in seriously trouble if people like you are representing it’. I called him an idiot because he ranted on about how Islam is ‘an evil religion’. People will bash me on this one for being un-patriotic. After all, this is a soldier ‘who is protecting my freedom’. I don’t buy that crap. My definition of patriotism does not rest in this Marine. He also isn’t protecting my freedom. He is actually making more enemies around the world with his attitude.
He continued to ramble on, FOR THREE DAYS, citing all these historical events, passages from the Qur’an, etc…etc, that highlight why Islam is ‘Satan’s religion’ (all of these comments were based in interpretation, as most religious convictions are). He also thought Muslims were pedophiles, zoophiles (didn’t even know what this was until he said it, you should look it up).
Here are some of @Vanburenjrmr really messed up direct quotes:
@Vanburenjrmr: ‘You can’t defend that Islam isn’t a sick religion, top to bottom’
Sure I can, if I had a year I could write a book on why Islam is not a ‘sick religion’ top to bottom. Many thoughts initially pop into my head (which I gave back to him). Islam recognizes Jesus as a Prophet. Saying Islam is a sick religion is like suggesting that respecting Jesus is sick (he often claimed I bashed Jesus). And what about the quote from the Qur’an ‘The ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr’ (a favorite of mine)). And seriously, if Islam is a sick religion, why have they produced great human beings? I have personally been lucky enough to have a mentor as one. Are you telling me he (Akbar Ahmed) is evil because he is a Muslim? These statements are not coherent. Blah, blah, I could go on and on.
@Vanburenjrmr: ‘Men having sex w/ animals, children, & men is common’.
Man, what a crazy statement! Not sure how to approach this non-sense, but here goes. Men having sex with men happens everywhere and is not specific to Islam (not meant as gay bashing, but go to San Francisco – tell me how regular it is there). Men having sex with children also happens everywhere (this is very disturbing, especially the cases where children are locked away for years and forced to have sex with their fathers). To suggest that Islam tells Muslims to do this is ridiculous. Having sex with children isn’t a religious thing – it’s a psycho, sexually deprived thing.
To claim that Muslims have sex with animals? Explaining this is beyond my capacity. Not sure I should be telling you this, but I knew someone who once said that he had sex with his dog. Based on that alone, having sex with animals is not unique to Islam because this guy was no Muslim. The point is, the @Vanburenjrmr associates such things only with Islam and not other religions (in fact, religion has nothing to do with it). He thinks the Qur’an tells Muslims to do this. Unreal.
@Vanburenjrmr: ‘Islam is still degrading to women’
The topic of women is the number one ‘basher’ for people that hate Muslims. They argue that Muslim men oppress there women and that they make them where the hijab, blah blah, etc etc. It is important to note that some Muslim cultures do degrade women, but degrading women is really a problem with humanity, not just Muslims. Take porn for example. America is rampant with it. They love it. Is showing a woman in the doggystyle position in a threesome not degrading (to her, her family, her friends)? And please, don’t give me the ‘it’s a women’s choice what to do with her body’. Non-Muslims degrade women as well! They don’t have to degrade women, but they sure choose to.
His points show how little he knows about the subject. Many Muslim women wear the hijab by personal choice (for many reasons I don’t feel like getting into). And how about Bhutto – she was president of Pakistan. Kuwait also just passed a law allowing women to hold a seat in Parliament. The list can go on and on, I just named the one’s that popped into my head. Really, one can see that Muslim women are degraded, yes, but Muslims aren’t the only ones doing so. Ever been to Vidgals.com? Has Jenna Jameson ever been degraded by a Jew or Christian? So much for Islam being the ‘king’ of degrading women.
@Vanburenjrmr: ‘Religion of peace, my ass’
Again, another favorite line for psychos that hate Islam. Muslims have been peaceful and violent throughout history, but tell me – which religion hasn’t?
This exchange lasted a few hours. I threw it right back at him and asked – are there any religions of peace? This is a touchy subject for me because I’m fairly anti-religion, and I don’t want to get into a philosophical rant, but here me out.
Violence is not unique to Islam. Christianity is guilty, and so is every other single damn religion. The Crusades, Gun Powder Plot, KKK, I could go on and on. The reason why I argued with him was not to bash Christianity but rather to alert him to his distorted perceptions and absurd claims. When I brought up the Crusades, by the way, he said they did not matter because they happened 1,000 years ago. Amazing.
Jesus would be so pissed at this guy.
There are many, many more ridiculous statements, but it’s 3:45 am, and I’m not even sure why I’m still up. Bottom line, this guy is going to Afghanistan in 2010. The title line of his Twitter bio ‘Looking forward to 2010 more and more by the day’. Great, just what we need – a jarhead (he was a jarhead, no doubt) that waves the cross in the faces of Muslims. Every general knows that we can’t win the war with this type of mentality. What is needed is the winning of ‘the hearts and minds’ to save face. I don’t think we should have gone into Afghanistan to begin with. I don’t think we should be there now. And I think we will get whooped. It is just scary to think that the Afghan operation is in the hands of people like @Vanburenjrmr.
So here is my conclusion. The guy clearly hates Islam and Muslims and is pretty fucked in the head (if you believe him, you are either arrogant and ignorant, or just plain psycho, like him). My biggest issue with this guy was his evangelizing, his confidence in knowing ‘the truth’, and his claims that Christianity was the superior religion, the only religion worth practicing.
The comment that really triggered me was that Jesus was ‘the Son of God, the Messiah, and the only way into heaven’. To me, such a statement is completely preposterous, ludicrous, and actually unfathomable (I don’t think Jesus literally meant he was ‘The Son of God’, I think he meant that ‘this’ (his attitude and actions) was how God wants us to act, that he was like a Son). To me, such a statement goes against everything that is rational and logical, but then again, who the hell really knows (I’m just going on gut feeling). Here me out.
Jesus was a man of love, compassion, tolerance; he loved the poor, the oppressed, and sought the truth and justice. I appreciate his teachings and hold him in high esteem. I think the world has learned a lot from him (but not enough) and certainly can learn more (I think @Vanburenjrmr does not really get what Jesus is all about). If I practice what Jesus preached, I’m pretty sure that I’m going to get into heaven (again, my own personal agnostic beliefs leads me to question everything – is there even a heaven?). Do I really need to believe that Jesus is ‘the only way to heaven’? Doing so is intolerant behavior, really. It would be like spitting on all the other faiths of the Abrahamic tradition that believe in the same thing as Jesus (like the Prophet Muhammad believed in God).
Do you think Jesus would prevent me into heaven if I said he really wasn’t ‘The Son of God’? I think Jesus would be more concerned with my attitude and actions on earth, my encounters with other human beings, and my purpose in this life. Again, this is all speculation to me. It assumes that this is all real and even important (what if we die and that’s it – wouldn’t that suck?). I just don’t think that if I really did meet Jesus one day, he would hate me because I wasn’t a Christian, because I didn’t believe in the Bible, that I didn’t think he rose from the day, and so on and so forth.
Jesus knows I’m cool. Period.
@Vanburnjrmr is obviously really twisted in his Christian convictions and his general outlook on humanity. He came across as a downright bigot (he even claimed his Christian brothers, the Mormons, were part of a ‘cult’). The guy is so obsessed with the literal interpretation of the Bible that it borders on fanaticism (actually, yeah, he is a fanatic. EASILY). He says ‘Christianity…is 100% true. Christ died on the cross, rose after 3 days, and ascended to heaven…’. Such statements make me cringe. What does that even mean, Christianity 100% true? How the hell can you know? How do you measure it? To say its 100% true means that you have God like powers and that you have all the knowledge and wisdom in the world to make such a massive claim. I never told @Vanburenjrmr this because he simply wasn’t bright enough to understand. Did Christ die on the cross? Probably (91% sure). Did he ascend to heaven? We don’t know really (we assume so); if there is one, Jesus is obviously there. Did he creep out of his grave and rise 3 days later? Hmm. Not so sure about that one. Sounds like this was made up by his disciples because it ‘sounded awesome’ for the Jesus story. That is just my humble opinion though. I really do love Jesus. Great teacher. Hope he lets me into heaven.
In conclusion, @Vanburnejrmr told me that he is ‘absolutely willing to die for Christ’. This one really freaked me out but also supported everything I argued. That quote should remind you of the ‘radical Muslims’ and the 9-11 hijackers. They are willing to die for Islam just like @Vanburenjrmr is willing to die for Christianity based in the sense of religious superiority, that their religion is the only TRUTH.
This brings up a very important question and the thesis of my argument: how is this mindset different than a ‘Muslim terrorist’? Aren’t they driven by ideologies to commit violence. Religious fanaticism?
One of the last things he told me. The only thing he is going to blow up is ‘Satan’s lie’ in Afghanistan. Even if he blows up Satan’s lie, he is a terrorist. That’s what he doesn’t get. Again, I’m not so positive Jesus likes this guy.
He also told me to go get the Bible, read Romans, and he will pray for my soul to find ‘the truth’ (not this topic again!). Sound familiar? Sounds like something bin-Laden and his cronies would say.
‘I still will pray for you, Craig. Shame you won’t hear the truth’ was one of his last ‘tweets’. I just had to laugh at that one. I hope he doesn’t pray for me. Jesus would deny me into heaven on suspicions that I was friends with him.
The point of this whole ordeal is that I wasn’t trying to win the argument, I was just trying to show him his contradictions. I don’t think he learned anything. The more we tweeted, the more he evangelized. Disgusting. Honestly, the guy reminded me of the behavior of ‘Muslim terrorists’ (a term throw around too much). He said that Christianity was the only way, that he was willing to die for Christ, that all other religions had it wrong, etc, etc. What an amazing world we live in. People can be so blind. And dumb.
Best part of this whole thing: @tom1023 just tweeted me ‘what is with this dumbass @vanburenjrmr?’
Twitter, Jesus, and Brainwashing: How Religious Fanatics Have It All Wrong
Leave a Comment
Twitterites told me 5 times today when I was criticizing religion that Jesus is the savior and that I must embrace him for ‘eternal life’.
What a loaded statement! What shenanigans!
These statements defy that which is logical and practical to thinkers who value evidence before forming a coherent thought.
Has anyone ever proven that Jesus is the savior?
Has anyone ever proven that there is ‘eternal life’?
I’m spiritual and I have faith in a higher force but I’m also not a narrow-minded and ignorant fool that vigorously adheres to a strain of theories that were fabricated and sensationalized through the pen by broke authors trying to make a buck 2,000 years ago.
Examining God, the higher power, heaven, the cosmos, the universe (or however you term ‘the afterlife’) through religious prisms that are simply speculative is doing yourself a disservice to the benefits of objectivity.
‘I know that I do not know’. Socrates was a wise man that said it well.
That is perhaps the only thing we can be sure of.
Is Jesus the savior? He might be. Who knows? Am I arrogant enough to tell someone he is? Absolutely not. I don’t do ignorance well.
Human beings should question everything, especially convictions coming from religious fanatics that claim to know and speak THE TRUTH.
Islamophobia, Double Standards, and the Shooting of Fort Hood
1 Comment
After the Fort Hood incident, I turned on the television and the radio to catch more details of these horrible and tragic events. Before we knew who the shooter was, commentators were already insinuating that it was quite conceivable that the perpetrator was ‘driven by a religious ideology’ or that he was a member of a ‘radical jihadi group’. They continued their inflammatory commentary by claiming that ‘to not associate such an event with a Muslim is like not assuming alcohol was involved in a teenage car crash on a Saturday night’.
When it was reported that the shooter had a Muslim name, recent events in Sudbury, MA (Oct. 2009) and Dearborn, MI (Oct. 2009) where two so-called Muslim ‘jihadists’ had their terror plots unfolded by the FBI were quickly linked to the Fort Hood shooting. All of these incidents, somehow were extrapolated to become activities related to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. One reporter on FOX said that ‘we can assume this is terrorism because the man had a Middle Eastern name’.
This particular reporter seems to forget (or just does not know) that just because a name sounds Middle Eastern does not mean they are Muslim. There are many Christians with Arabic sounding names in the Middle East. Again, the media is quick to jump the gun.
The same stereotypes in inner city robberies (Americans assume African-Americans were behind it) or catching illegal aliens on the Mexican border (Americans assume they were Mexican) are ingrained in the American psyche. Even more frustrating are claims that ‘not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims’. It seems like people have forgot about Timothy McVeigh, Ted Bundy, the ‘Unabomber’, and John Wayne Gacy.
It has been custom since 9-11 to report ‘terrorism’ only when it involves Muslims or Islam. A Church shooting in Maryville, Illinois in March of 2009 where a young white man entered a Sunday sermon and killed the pastor and two others was not reported as ‘terrorism’. Those in Maryville just assumed that the man was estranged and depressed. He could not possibly have been a terrorist because he was not ‘driven by an ideology’. It seems that terrorism exists in the United States only when the Qur’an motivates it.
The very same Maryville assumption could well be the case in the Fort Hood shooting. The shooter may have been depressed, estranged, and frustrated with his job, but because he was Muslim with an Islamic sounding name, he automatically was branded a terrorist, at the convenience of the mass media.
Americans suffer from serious stereotype problem, a bigger Islamaphobia problem, and an even bigger ignorance problem. Sadly, due to the irresponsible and jaundiced reporting of the Fort Hood incident, all mainstream and peaceful Muslims in the United States have to suffer from the stigma of terrorism. The double standards and the stereotypes must end. Whatever happened to America?
Interview with Imam Luqman Ameen
Leave a Comment
At 4:40 of this video, you will find an interview with Luqman Ameen, an Imam from Dearborn, MI killed on October 28 by the FBI.
Commentary on ‘The Clash of Civilizations’ Theory
Leave a Comment
In his lecture from 1993, the late Professor Edward Said of Columbia University dissects the ‘clash of civilizations’ theory put forth by the late Harvard University Professor Samuel Huntington. Huntington believes that the post Cold War world will ‘inevitably’ erupt in a conflict between Western civilization and non-Western civilizations, mainly a clash with Islam. The emerging conflict that Huntington forecasts will see a ‘dangerous’ foreign culture clash with ‘the superior Western culture’, challenging the global dominance of the US and threatening the very existence and preservation of Western cultural traditions.
Huntington’s ‘inevitability’ theory, for starters, was purely skeptical at best. It seemed not to originate from an overwhelming amount of evidence that warned of a grand scheme against the West, but rather it seemed to forecast the aggressive political desires of the neo-conservative faction of the Republican party (of which Huntington would be its ‘respected’ scholar). In perhaps his most striking passage, Huntington states ‘the West must exploit differences and conflicts among Confucian and Islamic states to support in other civilizations groups sympathetic to western values and interests, to strengthen international institutions that reflect and legitimate western interests and values, and to promote the involvement of non-Western states in those institutions’. This neo-colonial ideology for US foreign policy, nevertheless, came into action, though through much manipulation. Subsequently, the Bush II administration propagandized the ‘Islamic threat’ after 9-11 and excacerbated the threat that Islam really posed.
Howevern, Huntington’s thesis wasn’t valid in the present climate. The Islamic civilization, as he predicted, was not at war with the West. Radical Islam, a very small faction of Islam, was at war with the West.
Said’s analysis of Huntington’s explication is important for several reasons of which this passage will touch upon just one of the major topics. As Said noted, Huntington (for starters) never incorporated clear definitions of ‘culture’ and ‘civilizations’ to ground the whole premise of his argument. When he speaks of the Islamic civilization, he is implying that it is a homogenous entity.
Islam is undoubtedly the most diverse religion in the world today. To the surprise of many, Indonesia, India and Pakistan are the three most populated Muslims countries in the world (and they aren’t even in the Middle East). There are ‘Western oriented’ Muslim countries like Turkey and there are Muslim converts from Puerto Rico living as happy Americans in Miami. There are many branches of Islam, from the Bhora’s to the Sufis, who choose to have their own unique interpretations of the Holy Qur’an. To generalize Islam as a civilization is simply un-scholarly.
The problem with ‘the clash of civilizations’ theory is that Huntington generalizes that Muslims, all 1.4 billion of them, act, look, and feel the same. He also argues that Islam as a cultural entity is antithetical to Western norms. This is obviously far from the truth, with many examples of Islam and the West synthesizing, with Muslim Spain being the quintessential example of Islam’s compatibility with Western culture. There will always be Muslims that despise Western culture, but there will also always be Muslims that embrace it. How then can ‘Western civilization’ and ‘Islamic civilization’ be incompatible? Huntington’s thesis falls flat when he pings Islam as a monolith.
Said basically dissects Huntington’s thesis from top to bottom. His commentary is especially important because this is an age where US foreign policy mirrors his recommendations. By denouncing ‘the clash of civilizations’, Said in turn calls for ‘the community of civilization’, a much more tolerant and constructive manner in which to approach international affairs and potential conflicts.
‘The clash of civilizations’ created the hostile atmosphere that didn’t have to be for the US. The Bush II administration implemented his theory as the official foreign policy strategy (and sadly Obama has continued it). If anything, Huntington’s plan backfired. The US is no safer today than it was twenty years ago. The US cannot afford to continue down its ‘neocolonial path’ for it has already proved to be a useless strategy (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan). We must learn from the mistakes of Huntington’s generalizations and live by Said’s approach of ‘coexistence with the preservation of difference’.
