One-stop shop to make India 20 times richer

Category: Religion

Although Islam is a 100 per cent false, irrational and fascist, it is even more fascist for a government to impose a burqa ban

Following from my comments made in 2011 here, I’ve made some more comments on FB recently. Making note of them:

Couldn’t agree more (with this). The idea that the state should involve itself in the dress that citizens wear is fascist.
Yes, Islam is a fascist and irrational (and particularly dangerous) belief system, but criticism and debate regarding religion is the prerogative of citizens; not the business of government. A government must be religion blind.
Everyone must be free to pursue their delusions so long as they do so peacefully.

FURTHER:

It is not the business of government to keep looking at people’s faces. If the government has a particular case against someone, they should pursue it through courts.

I’m assuming at airports where security IS important, people are forced to remove their burqa to show their face and confirm ID. That is perfectly fine, but in day to day life, I’m afraid government has no business to want to see people’s faces.

FURTHER:

We have had burqa clad women in India ever since I have known India. Even today lakhs of women wear the burqa. In all these years there has never been any issue that I’ve experienced with women in burqa becoming a security threat to India.

At a minimum, you will need to provide evidence if you (as government) wish to impose on people’s freedoms. It is a very serious matter to ask people to change their dress just because you (Rahul) have a belief (probably more irrational than any religious belief) that women in burqa pose a security threat.

A government is the servant of all of us, including women who wear burqa. Before a servant can ask us to remove the burqa, the servant must prove the reason for reducing freedom.

Government that imposes a “burqa ban” is more fascist than Islam, and that’s saying a lot.

FURTHER

it is important that all liberals remain firmly committed to liberty and refuse to allow government to intervene unless there is direct threat of violence.

a dress is a form of freedom of expression. Although Islam is FASCIST and hates freedom of expression, we the liberals must insist that Muslims be free to practice their beliefs and express their beliefs so long as they are not violent. Burqa is not violent. So let’s not allow governments to stop Muslim women from wearing a burqa. Likewise I hope that Muslims will allow people to mock Mohammed and say whatever they wish to say about Islam, since speech is non-violent manner (unless there is a direct incitement t violence).

Freedom of expression cuts both ways,

 

Continue Reading

Question: Is it appropriate to cite the Old Testament to criticise the “God” of Christianity?

A bit of a controversy started on FB based on my citing the Old Testament (OT) as proof of the violence and inhumanity of the Christian God, here.

A key question is: are Christians accountable for the Old Testament? Or is the “god” of the OT radically distinct to the “god” of the NT? Did Christ “bring” to the world a new “god”?

I’ve concluded, after a bit of further review, that the two “gods” are indeed the same My interpretation (i.e. the Christians are accountable for their violent OT God – apart from the massive violence in the name of Christianity seen over the past 2000 years – except perhaps the past 5-6 decades) must stand. Christianity is a fundamentally a violent religion.

Some key proofs (in relation to the close relationship between OT and NT).

Quora: Does Christianity need the Old Testament? Could it be scrapped with little loss?

Christianity Today: Do we still need the Old Testament now that we have the New Testament?

Mmany Christians point fingers at the Islamic God. But as they say, those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones at others.

This comment is intended for people like Dom Azares. The only moral position in relation to Judaism, Christianity and Islam (and all other religions) is to reject them outright.

 

 

Continue Reading

Who is Dom Azares (also known as Dom the Conservative)?

I chanced upon a video by “Dom the Conservative” – this one:

This is a pretty powerful video – no wonder it has accumulated over half a million views (600 thousand+ as at the time of writing this).

Now the question is – who is she? Why should anyone care to listen to her? Well, here’s who she is (first of all, please note she is a Christian; she considers herself an “infidel”)

(This is an extract from 12:10 to 15:30 of this 2015 video). Tubechop URL.

She’s obviously received a vast number of death threats. And here’s what she says to women everywhere (and a bit more about her name – Dom is her nickname):

So here it is:

Here writings (over 1400 articles) so far, at http://madworldnews.com/author/dom/

Her Twitter account: https://twitter.com/ConservativeDom

Her youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7XA_FjaKwclXkcDTW2vhzA

Her Google Plus page: https://plus.google.com/+Madworldnews

Her email account: Domtheconservative@yahoo.com

Her banned Facebook page: only a screenshot of the banned info is now available:

facebook-com-domtheconservative

(search screenshot at 9:12 am on 30 June 2016 from Melbourne). Unfortunately, there’s no archive available on the wayback machine, as well. I do hope Dom has downloaded and retained her Facebook posts, in the hope that one day, a less oppressive Facebook may yet exist – but of course, then they can simply activate the page again. (It is truly shocking that Facebook has such an anti-free speech approach).

How credible is Dom Azares?

Well, should we listen to Dom? Is she speaking the truth? Does she really stand for the rights of women?

From my review of her work so far, I think she’s totally kosher. She’s not a “plant” by some Christian maniacs (but she should note that Christianity has been as violent – or more – than Islam; her defence of Christianity makes me question some of her work). She’s self-driven. And she’s genuine.

I think she brings the right kind of spirit to her work: to defend herself and women and everyone from maniacal killers (and worse) who are generated from the bowels of Islam. She is right to fight Islam, not Muslims. Muslims are as much a victim of Islam as anyone else.

However, she is a novice, and seriously deficient in her knowledge of the actute violence within Christianity. She needs to read up a lot more.

Evidence of violence within Christianity

In the chapter on Tolerance in my manuscript DOF: http://sanjeev.sabhlokcity.com/book2/discovery.pdf

Be not mistken, Christianity has been a far more violent religion than Islam has ever been

Everyone agrees that Christianity was the most intolerant religion of all

“Leaders” of Christianity: a rogues gallery. Knaves, blackguards, clowns and morons.

Islam has much innate viciousness but so do ALL religions. Let’s demand the rule of law and punish all criminals. (Correction: I now think Islam definitely has more viciousness than other religions, but history shows that all religions can become extraordinarily violent).

Continue Reading

All religions (all 100,000 of them) started as hallucinations of mentally sick people. Only dunces or dupes believe in religious texts today.

One fine day, not very far away now, religion will die. All religion – without a single exception.

Only the mentally sick and the dunces or the dupes still believe that religious texts are “true”.

But the question arises: how did these delusional texts become so powerful?

Initially, when man, the highly evolved monkey, became self-aware, he started asking questions about his origin. The mentally sick monkeys amongst us had some hallucinations about something they call “god”. That’s all a trick of a sick brain. (While “god” may well exist – there’s no way known to us to prove it; but anyone who has “sighted” or “spoken” with “god” or the “angels” was mentally sick, 100 per cent). Other mentally sick monkeys then decided to “believe” the other monkeys’ hallucination, without having seen it themselves.

There are over 100,000 different documented types of monkey hallucinations (religions).

Sooner or later, a “leader” monkey (i.e. king) was born who was either mentally sick or who – rationally – wanted to take advantage of a religious hallucination in order to gain personal power. And then that hallucination took off, it became “embedded” in society through the use of the leader monkey’s force.

Some of these hallucinations have now gone on for thousands of years because people were afraid to annoy the leader monkey (king).

But most children are born rational, even today. Society can’t operate if everyone hallucinates. These non-sick people always ask (when they are small) about proof. They ask: WHO in his right mind can possibly believe in these hallucinatory texts.

Hallucinations are flimsy imaginations that disappear through the sunlight of reason, through questioning. The thing (religion) is so pathetically weak in its foundations, it ALWAYS dissolves into thin air the moment people ask questions.

Religion therefore has NO HOPE. ALL children (excluding those who become mentally sick sometime in their life) will sooner or later reject it.

Islam is harder to kill, since it uses EXTREME FORCE to prevent people from leaving. But it, too, will ultimately die.

The day all people are liberated from religion, we can start living like humans for the first time, not like mentally sick monkeys.

Continue Reading

Voltaire noted that each page of the Quran makes common sense shudder, and that Mohammed was a vicious murderer

Not a fan of any religion, Voltaire found Islam to be particularly abhorrent:

But that a camel-merchant [Muhammad] should stir up insurrection in his village; that in league with some miserable followers he persuades them that he talks with the angel Gabriel; that he boasts of having been carried to heaven, where he received in part this unintelligible book, each page of which makes common sense shudder; that, to pay homage to this book, he delivers his country to iron and flame; that he cuts the throats of fathers and kidnaps daughters; that he gives to the defeated the choice of his religion or death: this is assuredly nothing any man can excuse, at least if he was not born a Turk, or if superstition has not extinguished all natural light in him. [Source]

The viciousness of Mohammed and Islam is INEXCUSABLE.

Continue Reading