If you want to be notified the next time I write something, sign up for FREE email alerts or subscribe to the RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
This is really stupid:
Saudi ISP have blocked SaudiEve's blog, and it is said that other blogs will follow.
At this point, it is unclear why exactly SaudiEve has been targeted, as she is neither the most outspoken nor the most political of the Saudi bloggers, as she mostly blogs about personal issues and not Saudi Arabia, and has never written about the Saudi government. Some bloggers surmise that her inclusion of a Christian and a Jewish travel prayer (together with a Muslim one) in her last post before a long journey was used as the excuse to request her blog being banned in Saudi Arabia, raf* said.
Many bloggers have voiced their concern and have called for activism.
You can also help by filling this unblock request form.
After I wrote the above roundup on my daily posts to Global Voices, something struck me.. Come again? Because of prayers? I can't believe the prayers be the reason. Eve's payers were of Christian, Islam and Judaism:
Christian Travel prayers »
Alone with none but thee, my God,
I journey on my way.
What need I fear when thou art near,
Oh king of night and day?
More safe am I within thy hand
Than if a host did round me stand.
St. Columba (521-597)Islam Travel prayers »
By Allah I commence my journey; by Allah I seek to
accomplish the purpose of my journey.
O Allah, make me overcome all; and make easy for
me all difficulties; and give me more of goodness than
I hope for; and keep away all evil of which I am
apprehensive for my health, O the most Merciful.Judaism Travel prayers »
May it be Your will our God, that You make us reach
our desired destination for life, gladness, and peace.
May You send blessing in our handiwork, and grant
us grace, kindness, and mercy in Your eyes and in
the eyes of all who see us. May You hear the sound of our
humble request. Blessed are You, Who hears prayer.
So, what the hell is wrong with these prayers?
Putting aside the stupid decision that a person sitting at the Saudi ISP has taken to block this blog, I tend to believe the theory that this incident was triggered by someone who watch the blog, from inside Saudi, and asked to block this blog.
But the question is: What on earth could Eve write that would harm anyone in Saudi? Judaism and Christian travel prayers?
If the person who asked for this blog to be blocked is reading, just one question please:
Can you please tell me what are you trying to protect or defend or fight for, here? Is it religion? Is it culture? Are you protecting your kids from reading unwanted material? (I guess Google trends proves your search for sex). What is it? For God sake, what does this proof or show for the rest of the world?
{ 86 } Comments
I just sent the applicarion form for unblocking her site…. First time i saw such a service. Good Gracious God…
On top of it all, aren't all of these prayers almost identical? What about any one of these prayers is contrary to the tenets of Islam (or Judaism, or Christianity)? Silly.
Dear Haitham,
I am glad that this story is being noticed beyond the Saudi blogosphere. I personally think this happened because some consider her writing to be blasphemous. And yes, there are few Saudi bloggers out there who openly denounced her writings and fired up requests to block her blog. It is funny though that this move will create an opposite effect because a blocked blog is a notorious blog, hence more popular.
Dear Aya,
I'm glad to see the cyber activism that you and others are doing in this case. It is really alarming (although not surprised) to start seeing blogs getting block because some stupid reader thinks it is not appropriate.
Please keep us updated about the story and I'll be happy to post follow ups on Global Voices so that more people can help and support for the freedom of speech at we all need to fight for.
Guys, please going the Aya and others in there cyber activism. Least you can do is filling this unblock request form:
http://www.isu.net.sa/saudi-internet/contenet-filtring/forms/unblock-requist.htm
(Thx, Vas for doing this already).
Haitham,
I've been checking out all the links you gave which linked to other links. One Saudi link suggested that it is not a good idea for non-Saudis to submit a form and that it might be counterproductive coming from outsiders seeing as how it is "outside Saudi influences" that are to blame in the first place. Is it a good idea or not to sign it as a non-Saudi?
Well, Robin… s/he maybe right. But, the history of such cases in this part of the world is not encouraging. Therefore, I would prefer to support and make my voice heard than keeping quite, especially that deeply I know that it won't make a difference, so I'll make a noise about it!
OK, I'll do it. Everytime I see a Saudi blog I think to myself, "this person using a screen name might possibly be someone I know there (or by this time the child of someone I know) or a relative going by an alias". My heart goes out to all of them reaching out from behind the curtain seeking to squelch their freedom of expression. The beauty of so many of their posts brings back the memories into my today, keeping them alive. So upon agreeing with your suggestion, I will submit a carefully phrased form that hopefully will not backfire. Thanks for connecting me to the noise. My Christian prayers to share with SaudiEve's and all other's in my former home.
Everything I've tried to say for three years has been blocked because I believe in God. But you know what?
God gave me somewhere else to speak.
See how everything works out?
Shalom,
If the kingdom is already famous for regulating what type of Islam dominates the two Holy Cities, why the surprise over the suppression of other religions?
Submitted unblock request! But like you, Haitham, I sadly do not believe it will make a difference.
A question about Saudi: isn't it legal to watch Arab Sat television? Stations like LBC and Future TV and all the redundant music-clip TV stations?
If those are legal, why would a blog like eve's be seen as a threat?
Perhaps: the blog in question isn't as mind-numbing as the soft pron music videos constantly streaming into Saudi living rooms. It's like they'd rather have racy cable TV wash over us than have us READ (non-democratic regimes are fond of uninformed masses).
I filed the URF. It won't get them to unblock you, SaudiEve, but like Haitham said, MAKE SOME NOISE!
Dear Haitham,
Thank you for the encouragement and support. Nothing new on the horizon so far! But I don’t think this is the end of the story. The only way to get back at these people is never to quit. At least this is how I see it.
This is so sad.
Your beliefs can control someones thought.
Being a nonbeliever I read this and I find that both Islam and Christianity have the most racist beliefs I have ever encountered.
Religious individuals are the most understanding people I have ever encountered.
Is it the religion or is it the people?
I am starting to lean against the extreemists of both religions.
Good excuse to be a nonbeliever!
Religions are the cause of most griefs in the world today and yesterday.
Kimmy,
Please explain what is racist about Islam and Christianity.
Philip,
Bush is a racist, many Imans are racist.
My faith is right and yours is not. That is racist.
The fact that you asked me about the racist views, makes you a racist.
I don't judge anyone. You asked me about what is racist about Islam and Christianity!
As long as you have religious leaders telling people how to act or to do whatever. You will have racism.
As a nonbeliever I see so much racism in the name of religion that it makes me sick.
Defend your religion to your ends. I will defend everyone's personal beliefs to their ends.
My god is the one who hates big corporations.
Kimmy,
I'm afraid you still did not answer my question.
Your premise appears to be this:
1) Bush is a racist because he is a Christian. that being because all Christians are racists.
2) Believing that one belief is correct and that another is not is racist.
3) Any religion/faith that includes standards of conduct is racist.
4) Your god hates corporations.
Okay, then. Well, there are a few issues here, respective to the above numbering:
1) By your "logic," fair enough, but…
2) You believe that Christian and Muslim beliefs are wrong, based on your statements. So are you a racist?
3) Thus all religions are to some degree or another racist.
4) Your god hates stock owners, which is an awfully large number of people ranging from middle to upper class (and a few in the lower classes). Is s/he a racist, too?
Maybe I should expand my inquiry:
What races does Bush hate, making him a racist?
What races do the Imams (as much as I otherwise disagree with them) hate, making them racist?
What races are hated in Islam? In Christianity? Think hard, because both faiths include people of all races.
Since Christianity (like pretty much all belief systems) includes certain standards of conduct and certain basic tenets, should I reject it in order to be politically correct?
Should I deconstruct the words of the very one I worship and tell him which ones I will and will not follow? If so, do I then really believe anything at all?
Since I am a Christian, that makes me racist, correct? What races do I hate?
Tell me now what races these prominent Christians hate or hated:
a) Martin Luther King, Jr.
b) Michael Youssef
c) Dinesh D'Souza
d) Billy Graham
e) Cai Zhouwa
Philip,
You are very good at twisting words.
If your religion accepts other religions and their views, you are not a racist. But you are using biased views to twist my words.
Both Christianity and Islam share the same views, even though they are different religions. I accept them both.
Bush made a great tactical error when he said (you can argue about this one) that God told him to invade Afghanistan and he did, God told him to attack Iraq, and he did!
That is his radicalism.
Telling Islamic youths to hate the west is radicalism.
You throw in people who are great in the name of freedom.
You are now telling me to make a choice as to who is right. I will not make that descision because the radicals on both sides are wrong.
The honest believers on both sides are right.
Tell me to make a choice puts you in the Bush league. "Either you are with me or you are against me." That is his quote!
Try to be neutral and some Bush supporter will be there to repudiate you.
That is you Philip!
Kimmy,
I am not saying that you cannot be neutral. That is your choice.
But Jesus said, "There is no way to the Father except through me." He also referred to himself as the Son of God and equated himself with God. By the record of his life, Jesus was crucified, died, and came back to life on the third day from his death (which he explained beforehand would happen). It is through this act that salvation is offered.
Now if I believe Jesus' words and accept these tenets, then my beliefs are inconsistent with Islam. So to reconcile the two faiths, I have to reject the most basic foundations of my faith. Should I do that to keep from taking sides? Should I call the very one I worship a liar or a madman in order to be in full agreement with Muslims?
On the contrary, should Haitham have to accept my beliefs in order to not have conflicting beliefs? If he does, he is rejecting Islam. If he accepts that Jesus is/did all that I said above, he is then calling Mohammed a liar.
So what do you recommend I do? Cease to believe? Cease to worship Jesus as God? Or should Haitham begin to worship him?
Faith can have fundamental differences. Islam, Christianity and Judaism have strong ties and equally strong differences. This does not mean we cannot be brothers on this earth.
The problem comes when faith is forced upon a population. Some good examples are the Taliban and the Spanish Inquisition.
But who is Bush forcing to convert to Christianity?
Who is King Abdullah forcing to convert to Islam?
Who is Joe Lieberman forcing to convert to Judaism?
By the way, Bush's "for or against" statement was very specifically aimed at nations who either supported an end to terrorism and those who passively allowed it. It was obvious that, say, the Taliban openly supported terrorists and that Jordan openly opposed them. He was pointing his finger at others who simply have no stance, thus allowing free growth of the menace on their soil.
Philip,
You are twisting words again.
You didn't mention Bush's comments about "God told me" comments. But you were adament about Bush's comments about "either you are with me or against me". Bush is a radical! Bush is for Christianity and against every other religion. His comments about his invasions was radically motivated. Deny all you want. He is a Christian radical and he will do everything he can to progress Christianity.
You mention Jesus, but you never mentioned Mohhamed's comments that are very close to Jesus's comments.
To me, religion is a form of control of society.
Keep them scared and keep them religious and we can control them.
Big corporations are now using this to keep their profits up and the people subserviant. Just like Haliburtan!
Sorry I didn't mention Bush's "God told me" comments.
Apparently it was only witnessed by 2 Palestinian officials. There is no other record, other than news sources quoting them. However, if their testimony is to be believed, he also said that God told him:
"Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East."
So God told him to be an advocate for Palestinian sovereignty, too. Why did you not mention that part of the quote?
But again, the statement is not terribly reliable, and then-White House spokesman Scott McCellan stated that President Bush never made those statements. Former Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas attended that meeting and said that the actual statement was, "I have a moral and religious obligation. I must get you a Palestinian state. And I will."
Can you provide me one piece of valid evidence, not rhetoric, that shows that Bush is against people of other faiths? His faith-based charities initiative included Christian, Jewish and Muslim charities. He holds alliances with numerous Muslim governmental heads and has any number of Jewish people involved in his administration. If you really believe that Bush is trying to force Christianity on people, you are living in a dream world. Frankly, it's silly. Dislike his policies all you like. Argue against his perceived failures in foreign and domestic policy. But claiming he is some sort of religious conqueror are way out of the realms of reality.
Did Jesus and Mohammed make similar statements? Sure. But they did not believe the same. Mohammed considered him a prophet. jesus considered himself the son of God (God in human form). These are irreconcilable, but again, that doesn't mean we can't believe fully the words of our prophets and our god(s) and still live peacefully together.
Is religion a controlling force in society? Somewhat. But if it functions in that way as a matter of personal choice, then that is all the better. Faith is a civilizing force when it is not abused. But Christianity is not about religion, not in its truest form. It is about a relationship.
Since when are corporations using religion to control people? Halliburton has no religious context at all. Entertainment corporations are largely anti-religious. Many corporations' charitable foundations fund groups that are anathema to most Christians and Muslims in particular. Tell me what corporations are pushing Christianity. Viacom? Disney? Anheiser-Busch? Pfizer?
Haitham,
Am I correct to assume that you believe that Christians, Muslims and Jews can get along well based on our similarities without feeling the nee to let go of the crucial things that distinguish us? That is, while the words of Mohammed and Jesus are often similar, some of the most crucial details are very different (e.g. Jesus' divinity). Yet that doesn't necessitate violent rivalry. Can't we all offer our faith in its fullest form and let individuals decide what to believe without seeking the destruction of the other?
Here's a freakin novel idea: SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!!
Keep you dad gum church in the church and in your own private life!! And that's coming from a Catholic, so neener neener
How can ANYBODY say that the predominately Muslim countries should separate their religion from the government when this administration continuously injects religion into EVERYTHING.
Kimmy, can I join you in your philosophy and still believe in God? I absolutely PROMISE you I will not try to convert you and will let you believe whatever you like as long as it's not hurting anyone. This subject makes my head hurt!
On another note: As I did some searching of the Saudi blogs yesterday I see that SaudiEve is putting up a great fight, ducking and jumping and being helped by her friends. It's really amazing to me to see how things have changed. GREAT!!! And if any of you Saudi bloggers read this, just keep jumping when that internet Mutawa stick swings and they will ultimately fall on their beards!! I do hope that all of you are safe in your struggle for freedom of expression. Keep it up and GOOD LUCK!
Kimmy, I won't "let" you believe, I will just accept you for just who you are. Before I put my foot in my mouth, I really hope you know what I am trying to say.
"The Religion of Right" if you believe you are right, then you are, and the universe will give you your proof. (Sorry Philip, but this is a universal statement sent out to ALL)
Keep the internet open for all!!!!
Robin,
You say it better than mindless wordgames with philip.
You can believe anything you want. You can tell me what your beliefs are and I will listen. The only thing I won't do is believe.
All I am saying is that violence is a primitive method of settling an argument.
Anyone who gives any reason for their side to be violent is regressing into primitive tendencies.
Philip,
you can bring up arguments about "what if" but they still point to using violence.
I think Haitham, I hope, is trying to point this out to us.
If I supported Bush, I would say Haitham is a terrorist and he is trying to sway my beliefs about Bush.
I don't get that feeling here. I get a feeling that we are all related somehow and we have to stop this family fight all over the world!
That is my ramble after a really bad day!
"Here are Bush's exact words, quoted by Haaretz: "God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me, I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." (http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd06302003.html) The words WERE said and they were reported in one of Israel's largest papers, Haaretz. So much for that part of the discussion.
Now, back to SaudiEve, or at least I hope I am paying her homage in what I am about to say. Since I come to you all with a past, one spent as an American married to a Saudi and having lived there, this is what I have to say. NEVER, I repeat NEVER did I ever experience any prostelyzing or prejudice against me because I was a Christian while I was there. I did not hang out with religious extremists, I hung out with everyday Saudis albeit of a higher socio-economic status. They were ALL Muslims, of varying degree of actual practice. My beliefs were not "tolerated", they just were never discussed much. When I wanted a Bible, my sister-in-law got me one. The ONLY encounter I ever had on a personal basis with religious extremism was in the souk meeting up with the mutawa. Now SaudiEve and others are meeting up with the internet mutawa (EXTREMISTS) who have zapped her PROBABLY because she included Christian and Jewish prayers on her blog. This is a sad state of affairs and is NOT a part of Islam, at least not the Islam I want to associate with nor did my Muslim friends and family there associate with.
Above in post #23, Philip you go on to say (paraphrase) that one must negate their own beliefs in order to accept another's as acceptable. Then you digress (thankfully) and ask if it is possible for us all to be brothers. Well, my answer is this: as long as you don't argue about religion you can and that is what Kimmy (forgive me for including you here) and I are trying to say. Religion should be kept PRIVATE and in the churches, used as a moral compass for oneself, and NOT forced upon another. These wack job internet police are going after SaudiEve and that is NOT a good use of religion. Forgive me if I use one Bible quote, Jesus said, "They will know us by our deeds" No where in that did he say "they will know us by what you tell other people to do and believe" It's called RESPECT for eachother's own personal belief autonomy. When the "Religion of Right" is used in ANY manner to curtail another's thoughts or actions, it is not acceptable to me. I am a HUMAN who will abide by laws and keep religion to myself (except for prayers which I send to all for their saftey) Remember that famous quote, "religion is the basis of all evil"? As a student of history, I would be a fool not to agree. Both Islam and Christianity at their cores do NOT teach coersion, nor should it's practitioners, that goes for the mutawa and the Bush Administration in their own mixing of church and state.
Still wishing all you Saudi bloggers lots of luck!!!!
Woops, by link above didn't come up as a link, let me try againwww.counterpunch.org/stclair09032004.html - 54k -
Kimmy, sorry you had a bad day. But at least you're here. Sometimes I worry the NSA got you when I don't see you for a few days!!!! home.flash.net/~bob001/echelon.htm - 27k -
This is what I fear for the Saudi bloggers, the technology is there, put in the wrong hands and it is a threat to all
Woops, by link above didn't come up as a link, let me try againwww.counterpunch.org/stclair09032004.html - 54k -
Kimmy, sorry you had a bad day. But at least you're here. Sometimes I worry the NSA got you when I don't see you for a few days!!!! home.flash.net/~bob001/echelon.htm - 27k -
This is what I fear for the Saudi bloggers, the technology is there, put in the wrong hands and it is a threat to all
Robin, I had to drive 100 km. to do a job that I couldn't do.
This is after a week of a very close friend whose daughter was murdered.
This is after a week of my youngest daughters husband who is anti-social decided to keep our grand sons from us.
Bad week.
We will live.
Kimmy,
That is absolutely horrible. My thoughts of comfort to you from south of the border. We're never too old to "hitch hike" if only in our minds (thoughts of another conversation)
Those Saudi bloggers are still at it, protecting each other!!!
Go team Saudi Bloggers!! They're still outjumping the internet mutawa. YEAH!!!!
Support Saudi bloggers.
I am in full support
Robin,
Yes, Haaretz did report the story, but again, only quoting the witness of those particular Palestinian officials. Abbas heard it a little differently. Oh well. Either way, you left out the part about Zionist anti-Palestinian Bush having a moral and religious obligation to promote a Palestinian state. Why exactly did you leave that out?
"Religion should be kept PRIVATE and in the churches, used as a moral compass for oneself, and NOT forced upon another." Let me break down the comma-broken segments:
1) No, not according to Jesus. But why should we listen to him? Reference Great Commission, literally his last (recorded) words to his followers while on earth…
2) Sort of, but it applies to all followers and provides a framework for civilized societies within reasonable non-sectarian bounds.
3) Correct.
“religion is the basis of all evil”
You're thinking of Karl Marx, maybe? Yes, religion, when misused, can be a great evil. But all evil? Both Nazism and Communism were/are atheist by nature. Tyranny is the real problem in all of these cases. But even tyranny is not the basis of all evil. Rather evil is quite varied and adaptable, hence its permanence.
You are giving me a headache again
I did NOT leave anything purposely out. I cut off the quote at the "God told me" because that was the statement in question. I offered the rest of the article for reference.
1) "Not according to Jesus" The United States is NOT a Christian theocracy!! And God forbid it ever becomes one. A "theocracy" of any sort favors one religion over another which in my book is BAD!!
2) "It applies to all followers" YOU said it: "followers" Not everyone is a follower. Keep it in your church and in your own personal life.
3 You say "correct" but at the same time are trying to interject Christianity into secular law. MAJOR contradiction.
Religion has been at the root of most wars since written history.
I am making the same mistake you are in getting off the subject of this thread. Forgive me Haitham.
When Saudi Eve put her prayers side by side, it was not only a comparison, but also a unity. This is what Islam teaches, the faiths of the "book". In my studies of Islam I have found alot of articles about how tolerant Islam is and I have also witnessed it on a personal level. Well, since she was targeted first, and the only reason people can possibly come up with are these prayers, I find this very anti-Islamic. Shame on the Mutawa and shame on Green Tea and his ilk. From what I have perused there is certainly a whole lot worse (not my standards) than these prayers. This is a very spirited group and all they want to do is talk to eachother, in print. This cat is out of the bag and anything short of banning all computers will never work. What are they going to do? Round them all up? I see the mutawa ALL falling on their beards and never getting back up, some day.
I'll go a little nuts here and keep it short and simple. By stating that Jesus said that faith is not private, that meant that is not to be confined in the walls of a building with a cross on top. That does not mean we have a theocracy. I want no such thing. I do not want Christianity to be bastardized that way Islam is in places like Iran. BUUUUUUUUUUUUT, that does not mean I have to crouch in some corner mumbling secret prayers to a limp-wristed god that I believe in only inasmuch as he suits me. In America, we have the freedom not only to worship, but to shout it from the mountain tops. So can Muslims, so can Jews. Even heretics like Paul Crouch and the rest of the TBN crowd have that right (although bilking their "sheep" [baaaaaaaaaaaaaaah] is not so much a right). And our presidents have the right to seek God's counsel. I shudder to think of a president who considers that to be a bad thing.
But back on topic … Eve was exercising her right. The ISP acted irresponsibly and, if you ask me, in a very cowardly fashion. Is Islam too weak to withstand the existence of 2 prayers that could just as easily come from itself? Obviously not. The people at her ISP need to grow some balls and quit freaking out because of some non-threatening travel blessings.
Well, the males should, not the females. That would just be gross.
Philip,
Hold your horses there for a second.
Both Nazism and Communism - as well as Capitalism (in the Neocon form) - are all intolerant ideologies based on ambitions for pure societies and territorial domination. Religions are ideologies that often promote intolerance and are based on ambitions for as-pure-as-possible societies and territorial domination.
Atheism is non-religious opinion, but not an ideology and it is not intolerant!
As all ideologies need a 'them and us' mentality to perpetuate, all ideologies are inherently intolerant!
Intolerance is the root of all evil. Unfortunately, most people do not see religion as personal spiritual guidance, but as an ideology justifying intolerance. Therefore, religions are not evil on their own, but they carry a serious risk of intolerance, which is the root of all evil!
What does this all have to do with SaudiEve?
Somebody does not tolerate that she shows respect for other religions and that she promotes equality among religions for spiritual guidance. I think there was evil intent behind forcing her ISP to block her blog!
Thomas,
Atheism is not an ideology. That is correct. Neither is any religious viewpoint. Atheism is a statement of belief, as are religions. Ideologies spring up from beliefs. Some ideologies have faith involved, some bear no theistic preferences; some are atheist in nature. Communism has written into its basis the nonexistence of God. Communism is atheist-based. Not all atheists are Communists. But all Communists (or nearly all) are atheists. Islamo-fascism has at its root the religion of Islam. All Islamo-fascists are Muslim. Not all Muslims are Islamo-fascists. Nazism was a little more ambiguous, but at its root, it denied the existence of God, or any power above that of the "master race." They were heavily rooted in Nietzche's philosophies, which denied the existence of God (or at least touted his death). The neo-Nazis of today are almost always virulently atheist. Yet, of course, not all atheists are Nazis. My point is that religion is not the root of all evil, nor is atheism, nor is any other faith system. The root comes in pride, the desire to subject others for the will of the self. Second only to that is utopianism, lying at its heart the naïve belief in the inherent goodness of all humans and the possibility of a perfect world (though in a way, pride is at the root of that, too). Pride breeds tyranny, oppression and evil after evil after evil.
Oh, and by "pride," I don't mean satisfaction in a job well done or feeling proud of your son when he hits a home run. It is the elevation of self and refusal to acknowledge one's own combination of good and evil and propensity to the latter.
My 52-year old American housewife eyes are burning
but they're STILL AT IT!! Go! Go! Team Saudi Bloggers. You guys are REALLY SMART AND FUNNY!!!!
Philip,
Hitler was not an atheist! There is plenty of reference indicating that he believed in Christianity, though he was also in favor of Darwin's evolutionary theory. Actually, he 'borrowed' a bit here and there even if it was some times contradictory.
His persecution of Jews was both explained with that he was doing the work of God and that Jews were on a lower level of evolution and therefore mixed marriages was a threat to continued path towards a "glorious evolutionary future" of Aryans, the higher race. Hitler often referenced Darwin's concept of 'survival of the fittest', though he extended Darwin's concept with his own racial idea that Ayrians were 'naturally selected' as a higher race.
The Catholic Church was arguing against Hitler until the day he came into power only. There is plenty of factual evidence about the cooperation between the Nazis and the Vatican which the Catholic Church did not manage to destroy after the war! The Nazis and the Vatican had anti-Communism, anti-atheism, and anti-secularism in common.
It is true that a lot of neo-Nazi sects (especially in the US where they are heavily influenced by White Supremacism) are atheists, but the original Nazis were not.
Communism is not doctrinal atheistic either. It is more technically correct to call it anti-theistic. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist, but does not require that one has to be against religions, that is the domain of anti-theism (intolerance). Some atheists are anti-theists as well, but all anti-theists are atheists. So, yes, all Communists are doctrinal anti-theists and therefore consequently atheists.
An ideology is an organized collection of concepts, assertions, and world view by a group of people, so religion is just as much an ideology as any political doctrinal system. Atheism is the concept that God does not exist, so it is an opinion (or belief), but not an ideology.
I did not say that religion is the root of all evil, rather that religion is often furtilizer for the root of all evil. Actually, I think we are saying pretty much the same thing but with different words.
Pride is a cardinal sin (if one believes in Christian mythology), but I think Dante's definition is right on target: "love of self perverted to hatred and contempt for one's neighbor". Though I am an atheist, that does not mean that I do not recognize the validity of the "Father of All Sins", becuase I think intolerance (which is most often the effect of pride, but also of wrath, envy, and greed) is the root of all evil! Whether intolerance is the result or the source is a chicken and egg discussion, so it is not that important.
I think religion is healthy if used as spiritual guidance, but too often it turns into a perverted loyalty to the religious ideology itself, which results in intolerance (contempt or even hatred) of everybody who do not or do not want to follow that particular ideology. And, then we are well on our way to the Clerical Fascism like that of the Born Again Christians or Islamic Fundamentalist. From the passive form of Clerical Fascism there is a very short way to the active form like 'spreading freedom and democracy'/'the Great Satan' or being a 'terrorist'/'defender of Islam'
In principle, religious ideology is similar to potatoes: If you eat 1-200 grams a few times a week then it is healthy, but if you eat 10 kilos a day then it is poison for your body
To avoid misunderstandings, let me emphazise that my potato example is not about how often somebody practice religious rituals but whether religion is practiced with modesty or with extremism!
Thomas,
Very good explanation of things, as usual. Just a note: Catholics do believe in evolution. To be a Catholic is not to be against science. (at least not since Galileo was excommunicated and a few others along the way): This is the Church's official stance in this matter:
"The Catholic Church has always taught that "no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people" (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).
As the Catechism puts it, "Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are" (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery."
An official statement by Pope Pius concerning evolution was contained in "Humani Generis" in 1950 but stemmed from earlier discussion at the First Vatican Council beginning in 1912 at which evolution was discussed and NOT thrown out as heretical. So if Hitler was reading Darwin on his days off and playing footsy with the Vatican (of which there is ample proof), then at least he wasn't "making up things" in this case because the Church in THIS case was up on the times. (As of now they've got some MAJOR catching up to do in other areas)
Here we go again, SaudiEve, you are an inspiration to us all to be able to just talk as we please.
Hi Robin,
Thanks for the explanation.
I guess God and Darwin reached a compromise:
On the first day God created the world with a Big Bang, and on the 19,104,973,174,542,800,179,168,295,752,497th day he indirectly created Adam and Eve who had evolved into human beings from the monkeys he created, according to his Intelligent Design Project Plan, on the 2,609,282,295,198,248,118,251,075,196,648th day!
Well Thomas, at least it's not the explanation of Adam and Eve in the garden some 5000 years ago with fig leaves covering their privates. Catholics are NOT literal translators of the Bible recognizing that most of it is allegory. (or at least this is the niche of Catholocism which I belong to having just recently converted and gone through the classes) My daughter attends a Catholic high school and covered evolution in her biology class this year. It was covered in a completely scientific manner she tells me, COMPLETE evolutionary theory. You've got your extreme views within any faith and quite frankly, I think it was a very good "inteligent" compromise on the part of the Vatican.
) and for me it's an easy fit. But I would NEVER suggest this "inteligent design" idea be taught in public schools. It is within the realm of faith which is where it should be. I wouldn't even offer it up as a possibility of fact to anyone. I was just letting you know the Catholic Church in THIS case does not deny science. (On the other hand, a Catholic female high school teacher was just fired for conceiving invitro twins. OUTRAGEOUS!! No birth control? OUTRAGEOUS. And there are some other policies that we all know are OUTRAGEOUS). But at least my daughter is not being denied science at her Catholic high school in the case of evolution.
For me personally, I could NEVER EVER even step foot inside a church (except for a wedding or funeral) which denied science. I hope you can tell by now, I am NOT an irrational person (well maybe sometimes
Thanks again SaudiEve for inspiring us all to rattle on.
Just a note: The above teacher I mentioned was not at my daughter's school. If she was, I'd be outa there in a heartbeat!
1) Can either of you tell me a flaw in this phrase? "The Theory of Evolution"
2) Origins should not be taught in government schools at all. Regardless of what belief you have, it is philosophy. The fact that there is science involved (in both I.D. and evolution) does not make it pure science.
Here is the definition of "scientific theory": "An explanation of why and how a specific natural phenomenon occurs. A lot of hypotheses are based on theories. In turn, theories may be redefined as new hypotheses are tested. Examples of theories: Newton’s Theory of Gravitation, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, Mendel’s theory of Inheritance, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity."
So maybe these are "theories" which also should not be taught. Or is it only evolution that picques your disdain?
"Origins should not be taught"? Well, I guess we can leave it to other countries to study the science of the "theory of evolution" because we shouldn't even be discussing it in public schools!! Talk about shutting down natu