People Build the Steeple

THEY ARE ONLY DOING WHAT THE BIBLE TELLS THEM TO DO.

If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky… Take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. – Deut 17:2-7

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. - 2 Chron 15:12-13

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases…you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. – Deut 13:13

f your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods …do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. - Deut 13:7

Anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. – Lev 24:16

Cleansing of the Koran would solve the problem. See the recommended cleansing procedure noted previously.

I'll try to take you at face value, then, Concerned.

Got a solution for what you fear, either, then? :)

Not converge...GENERALIZE!

For clarification, I am not Frank Collins.

To emphasize an important point, I repeat the following:

Unfortunately many contemporary Islamics live in countries that do not have freedom of religion, press and speech and therefore will never have the opportunity of real freedom. Such a shame!!! and so very, very dangerous!!!!!!!!!!!

And by throwing angels aka "pretty/ugly wingy talking thingies" on the myth pile, you basically converge the three major religions. If you include the "Mormon moronic angel Moroni" on the myth pile, you basically converge Mormonism along with the big three.

And I am not an expert on Muslim sects but they appear to have one thing in common i.e. they all follow the Book of Death to Unbelievers aka the Koran.

So does Christianity...I am Christian and I am DEFINITELY not like Evangelicals!

Concerned posted: Unfortunately unlike other religions, there is no "head" person/group controlling Islam. Has anyone ever listed the various Islamic sects? Sunnis, Shiites, Talibaners, Sufis, Wahhabis, "Bin Ladiners", Kahrijites, Ismailis, Zaidis, Fatimids, Assassins aka Nizaris, Alawis, Druze, Ahmadiyya and Baha'i????

A short description of each gives strong evidence that one is crazier than the other i.e. no central leadership is therefore possible.

So one is crazier than the other? That means they are not the same at all, doesn't it?

They have no central leadership among them? That further emphasizes that they are not the same at all, doesn't it?

So tell me this, in all these weeks of your foolish ranting about "evil Islam (singular)", why do YOU get to round all those groups up, add them to moderate Muslims and count them as all one?

Because if you didn't your idiot ranting would have looked even stupider much, much sooner.

I believe that is actually a textbook case of a sweeping generalization.

As far as Paganplace's pointing out that Frank Collins and Concerned are probably the same person, if they are not then it is definitely the spread of ignorance that is more evil than Islam! These two "high-fiving" each other is completely nauseating.

And Frank, that poll...honest to God! "Pretty Wingie Thingies" is like Chinese water torture...or hearing a 4 year old repeat the same thing over and over because they got a laugh out of it once...too young to have learned any better.

No one voted in that poll, except maybe Concerned, who is you.

Sybil got help practically half a century ago...I think they could integrate you, Concerned, and your poll voters much more quickly today.

That's why I'm more worried about preserving freedom of religion in the face of fear *here,* than throwing it all away to 'defend' one against 'an other.'

Certainly, I think we should support someone who is in fact calling for:

"new religious leadership that understands and acts on the dimensions of faith that are life-affirming instead of suffocating."

Instead of calling him 'Boo-boy.'

As for 'identifying evil,' well, when you point a finger, look where the other three go.

Some months ago, a contributor noted the following about the koran:

"After reading the koran for the first time, I had this bizarre vision....

I saw Muhammed sitting in a room, whispering these words to another man, "I need a drink of water". Then THAT man whispered words to the next person...and so on and so on....out the door, down the street, up the hill.....
the person sitting on top of the hill was scribbling furiously. He jumps up and yells:

"ALLAH NEEDS TO DRINK THE OCEAN FOR US TO SURVIVE!"

Many contemporary Islamics continue the tradition of making significantly stupid conclusions about this illiterate, hallucinating Arab to the detriment of world peace.

Unfortunately these many contemporary Islamics live in countries that do not have freedom of religion, press and speech and therefore will never have the opportunity of real freedom. Such a shame!!! and so very, very dangerous.

Try again.

Basically, Frank, I'm saying you can't fight "Evil" by *becoming* it. Especially not by just
*calling* people 'Evil' as a way to externalize our common responsibility to oppose injustice.

You can't fight injustice *with* injustice.

You only create more enemies *looking* for a convenient book or rationalization to do horrors.
Cause they've got it in their heads that *you're* the 'Evil' one in just the same way as *you* insist on seeing the world.

That can only bring more misery. Certainly, as your own admission states, doesn't offer any real *solutions.

I'm kind of talking, like, Jedi stuff, here, Frank.

You insist there are no good Muslim people.

You better bloody well *hope* there are, if you can't bring yourself to see them.

I think the Muslim and Christian communities *both* need to consider the implications of having opposing books which each claim their adherents should 'convert' the world; and the following of which books is said to put the survival of souls at stake. We've got radicals here in America trying to *turn* us into the 'Evil Empire' that the Muslims want to fear, while they in turn get turned into the hordes of terrorist fanatics that *you* want to fear.

There's no one anyone can *kill,* nothing anyone can *destroy* that will solve these problems.

We need to be *open,* and *fearless* enough to *stop hurting and terrorizing each other and ourselves* if we want to address what will lead to strife.

Frankly, if we don't get together and start managing some fricking resources *right now* there is very likely *going* to be a lot of war whether religion says so or not. So simply trying to batter at what you think Islam is to make you feel 'righteous' wouldn't help if you *could* make it go away.

Frankly, this endless fighting just screws up our world. What needs to happen is some *healing,* here.

That means, quite often, allowing your 'enemy' to be human if you expect them to act that way.

'Good' isn't a *side,* or a flag, or a holy book you can *own.* Or claim for yourself as a label and stop being aware of the effects of your actions. That just leads to tyranny with a different brand name.

'Good' is much more demanding. It's a practice, not a 'thing.'

*That's* my position.

Who said anything about pretending 'warm and fuzzy?'

Only you.

But indulging in paranoia and hate, and reinforcing ignorance won't do the world any good, either.

Nor does being insulting.

I've been threatened with all manner of nasty things, including death, more than once by Christians who can't see the world except in illusory black and white, ...and I don't hate the Christians I live among, either.

Frankly, that'd just be being blind to anything *actually* going on, anyway.

Hello Anonymous

You raised an interesting point about Malaysia, something Norrie Hoyt would have asked too.

So, there are many references to history here. Who was it that said those who never learned from history is condemned to repeat it? Make new history then, as the best option.

It is also apparent that many who recall history here are not intent to learn from it, but to justify history as basis for continuing whatever gripes and assertions they have.

As for the Malaysian case on Lina Joy, that has been dragging on for months, and is now before the Attorney-General. The piece of news quoted is months old too. The case is a test for both the Shariah court system and the civil court system and their respective areas of responsibilities.
The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. But the state religious authorities and Shariah is responsible for Muslim affairs generally, including marraige. That makes it really messy and very interesting for all Malaysians, including on the rights of children as to which faith they adhere to and at what age can they make this decision regardless of what their parents want.

There were two other high profile cases preceding Lina. One, the question as to whether a Mr. Moorthy, a Hindu, did convert to Islam or otherwise. This came out after he died. His Muslim friends said yes. His Hindu family said no. The blinkered Shariah court judge said yes and he was buried as a Muslim. The thing is, to be a Muslim, one only need say the simple declaration, "There is no God but God, and Muhammad is His Messenger" in front of one or any given number of Muslim witnesses verbally, or anyone who heard him say so. Of course some converts do register themselves with the Muslim religious authorities of the states. Mr. Moorty never did that nor bothered to tell his wife and family of his act, which may or may not be serious, and continue to live as a Hindu according to his family. As for Muslims, however a Muslim behave personally - drinking, eating pork, gambling, not fasting etc. he is still Muslim regardless. It was an emotive and shocking matter for Mr. Moorty's family and rightly so, raising questions of people living a lie to their families and friends.

In another recent case, the civil court judge awarded a Hindu father the rights to raise his childen as Hindus in spite of the Muslim mother's protestation, and who brought charges in the first place for the right to raise her children as Muslims. She accepted the civil court's decision and not much stirring among Malaysians regarding it, Muslims and non.

In all these cases, it was the neglect of government to rein in or to standardize at the federal level, the differences between state relgious authorities re the Shariah, and clear seperation of civil courts from Shariah courts on matters of personal beliefs. Now they are doing something about it after public pressure for clarity on the issue that is both Constitutional and respecting personal beliefs.

Malaysia, as a federation, gives Constitutional authority to states on matters of religion and land. All the 13 Malaysian states have their respective state muftis. There is a federal council of muftis comprising these state muftis to agree on and find consensus on issues and issue fatwas which may or may not be enforced at the state level or which may or may not be complied by Muslims. And Malaysian Muslims are not averse to ignore or thrash the state muftis publicly in the media or the blogs on their sillier pronouncements and decisions, such as allowing a Muslim man to divorce his wife by SMS for example.

On the question of leaving Islam, it was deem to be a matter for the state religious authority to deal with. Some states' Muslim religious authorities are flexible and allow Muslims to leave Islam. Some are are more stringent and send these Muslims for counsellings, which are no better than re-education boot camps as alleged by some and are questioned in approaches and methods by many.

There is a Malaysian state, Kelantan, that has a democratically elected a government led by Deobandi trained Muslim scholars. Deobandi is where the Taliban got their schooling too, and Deobandi is associated with the Salafists/Wahhabis interpretation of Islam. They have tried to institute and implement their particularly stringent Shariah, including cutting off hands for thieves, stoning and whipping of adulterers etc, but has not dared or been able to do so as the proof for those crimes are equally stringent and all Malaysians are waiting if they can do so with justice and fairness in mind. As they insisted they are applying God's laws, they are also fearful if they don't do it right and fairly, they in turn would be questioned for the acts they did in the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. The secular or civil laws of Malaysia, inherited from the British, is more cruelly applied - whippings for drug traffikers and rapists among others, and sometime hangings too. This is a bone of contention for many Malaysian human rights NGOs, corporal and capital punishments.

I love Malaysia as it is a place where every stripe of Muslims, from the Salafist inclined, the Muslim Brotherhood inspired, the Shariah reformists among others, thrived and thrashed it out in the courts, the media and by elections, not by guns. No one is really afraid of terrorists, be it communist or Muslim due to the nation's history of the last 50 years. With its particular history, communal make-up, a Constitution that no one is satisfied with, and fragmentation of groups into sub-groups, Malaysia is like a microcasm of the world.

Even the Indians are split into Tamils, Bengalis, Sri Lankans, Malayalams. And into Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians. Even the Chinese are niched into Mandarin-educated, English-educated and Malay-language educated. Not to mention being Buddhists, Taoists and adherents of various Christians denominations and Bahais too.

I see Malaysia, the most multicultural society in South East Asia, as a very twitchy country and sometimes nervous people adapting to the realities of multiculuralism, learning to compromise and accomodate, and to go beyond tolerance of differences in race and religion.

Let the cases on matters of religion and race be out in the open in Malaysia - in the courts, in the media in the blogs. It is focussing the Malaysians' minds on these issues with people making stance on them and arguments shaping up over time. Malaysians, unlike my countrymen Indonesians, do have a capacity to step back when things seem to boil over from heated words into regretable violence. The police would not give a permit for street demos easily too when issues are deem by them to be volatile.

I once asked a police chief why they would not issue such permits for peaceful street gatherings. His response was rather startling. He asserted that it does not take one exuberant and passionate fellow to get out of hand and conflate the whole group into street fighting what with the Malaysian heat literally and emotively sticky on issues of race and religion. A bad combination he said, and it will worsen the situation. I did not know the history of Malaysian well then, including the infamous May 13 Incident.

It is from the Malaysians that I learn never to take for granted how personal belief and communal faith means for a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Christian, or a Muslim. It may be that beliefs are sharpened in Malaysia, and Malaysians more sensititized and more sensitive re these issues. It is also aggravated by the Constitution that designated all Malays as Muslims and stated so in their identity cards, never mind that Dyaks, Ibans and Kadazans etc of East Malaysia are not distinguishable from Malays, but are also either Christians or animists/polytheists, and some Muslims.

I love mad, madding, maddening, multifaceted Malaysia. Issues of race and religion are discussed with such unfettered rawness and atavism in Malaysia that nothing said in On Faith makes me flinch. The posters seems amatuerish here for they don't really know nor live among Buddhists, Christians or Muslims as Malaysians do everyday.

Malaysia is a place where Muslims are reconciling their way, legally and mentally in the world. Where else in the world can Muslims call me a conservative Muslim, a liberal Muslim, a Muslim apostate, a fundamentalist Muslim for the different views I have on different issues?

I did not get my head, tongue or fingers chopped off nor do they who disagreed with me. Death threats is ridiculed. Better for one to get detained without trial under the Internal Security Act, something like Patriot Act and predating it. Truly a a badge of blustering pride for Malaysian political dissenters. Never mind if one raises racial and religious ruckus and got people out in the streets thrashing one another on what one said while one sits comfortably in one's home reading Omar Khayyam or listening to Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan and not think too much about the poor, ignorant semi-educated fools getting beaten up in the streets by the police. One can always say these peasants, these unwashed masses can't accept reason, nor have a civilize discussion, but only knows how to act and react in violence. And what has the cars and windows and doors got anything to do with it eh? And the police, the state is oppressing the freedom of the people for public assembly, for peaceful protest.

And so it goes.

Ah, well, I did promise him some attention, HL.

It's about up, though. :)

Frankly, it's Memorial day, so a little scuffling with fascism seems as good an observance as any.

:)

As for what *I* know about Paganism, Frank, well, judge by what other Pagans say about what I say, I suppose.

As for what you know about anything else,

There's a few clues out there, too. :)

Pagan,

I don't know why you bother arguing with this donkey hole. He is so screwd up he does not know a reasonable exchange even it hits on the head. you'd better believe that you will NEVER get through to him, on ANY level. So don't bother. Just walk away and leave him to his misery. He is a sorry exuse for a human being.

Yes, it's spreading hate by insisting that's all there is to a bunch of people in the world.

Frankly, as I've said, *repeatedly*, the problem is you seeming to try to drown out anything else by insisting people see *nothing but.* And the other things you say about people *are* in fact hateful, lies, and, willful blindness.

All you're doing is redefining people... as 'enemy.'

That might fly on Fox News, but not here.

As for not having said enough to give anyone a basic understanding, you've *spammed* threads with that information.

It's your lack of reading, and lack of willingness *to* get the point of far simpler things, I think.

You'll find we're not so easy to encapsulate, given our internal diversity.

Cause, Frank. I'll tell you one thing about Pagans, ...we don't just 'dislike' lies, we know what they *do.*

You spread deceit and hate, then it comes back to you. Threefold, we say. You demonstrate the results in yourself quite nicely. You can't even *see* straight.

Basically, Frank, you're a liar.

Tell me what you think a Pagan is apart from your defamation of 'All you believe is do what feels good.' If you think you know so much what I *look* like.

Frankly, if you think I speak or believe 'like a Muslim,' it just goes to show you know nothing about either.

So you know, I don't dispute that the Koran says horrible things that have been used to justify or command horrors throughout its history. So has the Bible. I deny the authority of both. Happy?

The fact that your reasoning leads you to the obvious error that I'm an 'Islamic,' ought to be a reason to *check your reasoning before you speak falsehoods.*

Just cause you believe you can rationalize that it's 'OK' doesn't mean it's not 'false witness.'

"i have not vilified any good person."

Yes you have. Even by your own terms, you said 'You cannot be a good Islamic' and then called me Islamic.

Ergo, you called me evil for saying that your obsessive spamming when people are trying to have a conversation is counterproductive.

You've just said that you don't *care.* You want to call people 'Evil.'

And we know where *that* always leads.

Someone with a little less obsessive-compulsion and a dash of reading comprehension, you'd think, might have learned a *lot* about Paganism from what I've said, rather than accuse *me* of ignorance of my own ways cause he refuses to register even simple statements, never mind a little beyond his literalist us. vs. them worldview.

Why don't *you* tell me what 'A Pagan looks like.' I'm sure your image, if you even *have* one is just as distorted as that of the rest of the world.

Well, Frank, I think people can decide for themselves what's going on, here. By your own admission, there's no solution involved in your 'mission' to shut down dialogue, and I say there *are* solutions in a nuanced and reality-based view.

As well as *sticking to* our plurallistic principles, instead of selling out our ideals through fear, and even vilification of good people who don't agree with you.

The blindness you're advocating is where fascism *comes* from.

If you 'hate sin,' then you should consider the commandment about 'false witness' when you *insistently lie* about me.

This is what might happen if the radical religious right gets their wish according to one of their leaders:

There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore.

We have imagined ourselves invulnerable and have been consumed by the pursuit of ... health, wealth, material pleasures and sexuality... It [terrorism] is happening because God Almighty is lifting his protection from us.

We have a court that has essentially stuck its finger in God's eye and said we're going to legislate you out of the schools. We're going to take your commandments from off the courthouse steps in various states. We're not going to let little children read the commandments of God. We're not going to let the Bible be read, no prayer in our schools. We have insulted God at the highest levels of our government. And then we say, "Why does this happen?" Well, why it's happening is that God Almighty is lifting his protection from us.

I think George Bush is going to win in a walk. I really believe that I'm hearing from the Lord it's going to be like a blowout election of 2004. It's shaping up that way. The Lord has just blessed him.... I mean, he could make terrible mistakes and comes out of it. It doesn't make any difference what he does, good or bad. God picks him up because he's a man of prayer and God's blessing him.

The Constitution of the United States, for instance, is a marvelous document for self-government by the Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian people and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society. And that's what's been happening.

Individual Christians are the only ones really -- and Jewish people, those who trust God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- are the only ones that are qualified to have the reign, because hopefully, they will be governed by God and submit to Him.

When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. "What do you mean?" the media challenged me. "You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo-Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?" My simple answer is, "Yes, they are."

You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them.

It is interesting, that termites don't build things, and the great builders of our nation almost to a man have been Christians, because Christians have the desire to build something. He is motivated by love of man and God, so he builds. The people who have come into [our] institutions [today] are primarily termites. They are into destroying institutions that have been built by Christians, whether it is universities, governments, our own traditions, that we have.... The termites are in charge now, and that is not the way it ought to be, and the time has arrived for a godly fumigation.

God's pattern is for men to be the leaders, both in the church and in the family... "Women should listen and learn quietly and submissively. I do not let women teach men or have authority over them." [For According to the bible:

For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression]

I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period.

Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals -- the two things seem to go together.

If the widespread practice of homosexuality will bring about the destruction of your nation, if it will bring about terrorist bombs, if it'll bring about earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor, it isn't necessarily something we ought to open our arms to.

I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you - on the occasion of the Orlando, Florida, Gay Pride Festival 1998

I think we ought to close Halloween down. Do you want your children to dress up as witches? The Druids used to dress up like this when they were doing human sacrifice... [Your children] are acting out Satanic rituals and participating in it, and don't even realize it.

Communism was the brainchild of German-Jewish intellectuals.

With all due respect to those dear people, my friend, God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew

The courts are merely a ruse, if you will, for humanist, atheistic educators to beat up on Christians

The strategy against the American radical left should be the same as General Douglas MacArthur employed against the Japanese in the Pacific . . . bypass their strongholds, then surround them, isolate them bombard them, then blast the individuals out of their power bunkers with hand-to-hand combat. The battle for Iwo Jima was not pleasant, but our troops won it. The battle to regain the soul of America won't be pleasant either, but we will win it.

Surely, Frank, 'What to do' about this 'problem in the world' isn't to go spreading hate, displaying ignorance, causing more suffering, and making enemies.

Which is all you get when you think and talk like that, while the likes of the current administration starts preparing material for some future History Channel 'Great Blunders In History' documentary.

Immediately after 9/11, there was a *great* deal of sympathy in a world ready to look to America for some good leadership on the problems of terrorism and the injustices of Islamic radicalism.

Instead, *our own* right wing religious radicals here, well, they *squandered* all that good will, and national prestige, not to mention a good chunk our wealth and military readiness... on Iraq, about which people who want a simple 'Islam is the enemy' *still* tend to believe the lies about.

That wasn't a good thing to do about it, now, was it? It's not like pretty much *the whole rest of the world* wasn't telling us that Iraq was a *bad idea...* did Bush listen, even when Colin Powell advised against it, and then washed his hands of this 'You break it, you bought it' situation?

No, and neither did the religiously-polarized part of the American population. Bush thumbed his nose at the world, *in our names* and went on ahead with no *plan* except for various premature victory dances. Oh, and his belief it was his 'God's will' to do something that stupid.

Now and for the past years, our *options* have been sharply-limited. But you want something to *really* do about the problem?

For one: No more propping up 'righteous' oppressors for oil money. For that matter, no more impeding environmental measures that keep us dependent on that oil in the first place. Let's not forget how the Bushes and Bin Ladens are in bed together, and this Osama fellow is the black-sheep son. Kind of telling.

For another, *stop finding and making enemies.*
We need to be *making friends,* here. Some might be like Jihadist, here, who doesn't want to give up her culture and ways, but *does* want reform, by the sound of it. Is America *helping* her? Or are just calling her 'evil' while trying to see the world in this simplistic 'For us or against us' way?

America's not that simple, either, but I wonder how many folks over there know that.

There are plenty of people out there in the Muslim world who are *afraid* to oppose the radicals in their countries because everyone's so pissed at America right now. Won't help to *insult* them with this xenophobia.

And, most of all, we have to beat back these theocratic forces at *home.* We've got to support politicians who *don't* stand for simplistic and intolerant views, cause that bunch *are* selling a lot of folks a bill of goods about a great many things.

Don't buy the smear tactics, and for Puck's sake don't *use* them.

America should be helping the poor, instead of spending half a trillion dollars to make things worse somewhere. (and not with a hook in the food for 'conversion efforts.' People can tell.) And living up to our standards of liberty and justice so it'll *mean* something again when we speak to the world on it.

I, for one, don't assume Bush &co are playing to win. Maybe they're playing to destroy our own democracy for their religion and class. One thing's for sure: if they *are* trying to play for freedom and democracy and world even national peace and prosperity...

Funny how it always seems to come out the exact opposite of what Bush *says* something will do.

Starting with calling himself a 'Uniter, not a divider.'

Don't you believe it. It's gotten so it seems half the country can't even *talk* to the other anymore, never mind the world.

I mean, *look at yourself.*

So wound up in your 'Good Vs Evil' thing you simply decided to call 'Islamic' anyone you don't like.

Or articulate what they propose to *do* while waving a flag and a Bible.

Except make it worse.

We should be *communicating,* for starters.

Not trolling. :)

Jihadist,

Why didn't you tell us about this episode in your wonderful, tolerant, adopted country?:

Malaysian Christian Tests Islamic Law
High Court to Decide Convert's Case

By Eileen Ng

Monday, May 28, 2007; Page A12 of Washington Post

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, May 27 -- Lina Joy has been disowned by her family, shunned by friends and forced into hiding because she renounced Islam and embraced Christianity in Muslim-majority Malaysia.

Now, after a seven-year legal struggle, Malaysia's highest court will decide on Wednesday whether her constitutional right to choose her religion overrides an Islamic law that prohibits Malay Muslims from leaving Islam.

In Depth

Multimedia
Photos, videos and panaromas of religious events and trends around the world.

Global Religion
An occasional look at how globalization is redefining world religions.

Open House
A glimpse inside houses of worship in the Washington area.

BY DATE 2007
Jan Feb Mar April
May June July Aug
Sept Oct Nov Dec

Previous Years: 2006 BY FAITH
Muslim
Jewish
Christian
Hindu
Buddhist

Save & Share Article What's This?

DiggGoogle
del.icio.usYahoo!
RedditFacebook

Either way, the verdict will have profound implications in a country where Islam is increasingly conflicting with minority religions, challenging Malaysia's reputation as a moderate Muslim and multicultural nation that guarantees freedom of worship.

Joy's case began in 1998 when, after converting, she applied for a name change on her government identity card. The National Registration Department obliged but refused to drop Muslim from the religion category.

Joy, who was born Azlina Jailani, appealed the decision to a civil court but was told she must take it to sharia courts, which handle Islamic issues. But Joy, 42, has argued that she should not be bound by Islamic law because she is a Christian.

Subsequent appeals ruled that the sharia court should decide the case. The highest court, the Federal Court, will make the final decision on whether Muslims who renounce their faith must still answer to Islamic courts.

About 60 percent of Malaysia's 25 million citizens are Muslim, and their civil, family, marriage and personal rights are decided by sharia courts. The minorities -- the ethnic Chinese, Indians and other smaller communities -- are governed by civil courts.

But the constitution does not say who has the final word in cases such as Joy's, when Islam confronts Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism or other religions.

If Joy loses her appeal and continues to insist she is a Christian, it could lead to charges of apostasy and a possible jail sentence.

"Our country is at a crossroad," said Benjamin Dawson, Joy's attorney. "Are we evolving into an Islamic state or are we going to maintain the secular character of the constitution?"

The founding fathers of Malaysia deliberately left the constitution vague, unwilling to upset any of the three ethnic groups dominant at the time of independence from Britain 50 years ago, when the goal was to build a peaceful, multiracial country.

Joy began going to church in 1990 and was baptized eight years later. Joy and her ethnic Indian Catholic boyfriend, known only as Johnson, went into hiding in early 2006 amid fears they could be targeted by Muslim zealots, Dawson said.

Joy's decision to convert has sparked angry street protests and led to e-mail death threats against a Muslim lawyer supporting her.

Some Muslim groups say Joy is questioning the position of Islam by taking the case to civil courts.

"It is not about one person, it is about challenging the Islamic system in Malaysia," said Muslim Youth Movement President Yusri Mohammad, who set up a coalition of 80 Islamic groups to oppose Joy's case. "By doing this openly, she is encouraging others to do the same. It may open the floodgates to other Muslims, because once it is a precedent, it becomes an option."

If I were to judge the religion or belief system of Frank Collins by the posts he makes in this forum, I would judge it to be one of intolerance, hate, and anger. His words are little different than the intolerance spouted by many closed-minded people in some Muslim countries. He talks of how some Christians act in an un-Christian manner--he seems to speak of himself. Use of terms like "boo boy", "islamics", and the other slurs used by Frank and Concerned betray their hate, lack of civility, and desire to offend.

Dear Islamic Loving, Gore Voter, Clinton Lover and PAGANPLACE What Else?,

You noted in another of "too many leftist one liners":

"As far as *I'm* concerned, we didn't appropriately blow the crap out of the Taliban, who had it coming long before 9/11, because Bush took the resources from that to carry out his ill-advised 'Crusade' in Iraq. "

I responded with a number of factual one liners that bear repeating over and over again:

"For the record:

1. Saddam, his sons and major henchmen have been deleted. Saddam's bravado about WMD was one of his major mistakes.

2. Iran has been contained. (besides fighting the civil war in Baghdad, that is the main reason we are in Iraq. And yes oil continues to flow from the region.)

3. Libya has become civil.

4. North Korea is still uncivil but is contained.

5. Northern Ireland is finally at peace.(due to the Patriot Act that stopped the foreign funding of the IRA),

6. The Jews and Palestineans are being separated by walls (analogous to the two Czech republics). Hopefully the walls will follow the 1948 UN accords.

7. Bin Laden has been cornered under a rock in Western Pakistan since 9/11.

8. Fanatical Islam has basically been contained to the Middle East but a wall between India and Pakistan would be a plus for world peace.

8. And the stock markets and economies around the globe continue to show good growth and opportunity for the common stock holders.

So George and his guys and gals have not been perfect but there are some major accomplishments.

Bill Clinton and his crew definitely had their accomplishments but were not "pretty wingie talking thingies" either.

God Bless America on this Memorial Day honoring our military gals and guys and their global victory over the Nazis and Commies and the containment of fanatical Islamic crazies.

Anyway, Frank, I'm gonna have to let you go after this, but, consider that if you can't tell a Goddess-and-Liberty-loving Irish-American Pagan from the specter of 'Islamics' you fear, that someone did a number on you.

I'm on Liberty's side in this, whether that means opposing you or Islamic radicals or anyone else.

Swear to the Gods. :)

You've appealed to me as a Pagan, 'knowing which side my bread is buttered on...'

I'm saying, *Don't drop the toast, cowboy.*

America's worth it.

At least the America *I* was raised to believe in.

Dunno what you have in mind.

Or, umm, "Stragity." Didn't mean to misquote, there.

As for 'The Topic'...

(never mind the 'Concerned Christian' assessment of events and what's to credit for any good in them according to Fox News: ...dude. I'm more curious about where you thought that cut and pasting that was *relevant* here. )

The *topic* is why you seem to be unable to either talk about anything *but* whatever you're fixated on, and, in fact, what good you think it does to do so.

I, personally, don't care how your 'backgammon' game is going. Whatever 'game' that is, there's neither honor nor sense nor even gain in it.

You want a war and *don't* even have a 'stratigy.'

Never mind an idea that it's the wrong fricking "war."

"i call you islamic because you are. if you were a pagan you would dislike islam as much as every other religion, and you dont."

Is religion about *disliking people,* 'Christian?'

I mean, thanks for demonstrating what we may loosely call the thought process, here, but...

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you.

For the record:

1. Saddam, his sons and major henchmen have been deleted. Saddam's bravado about WMD was one of his major mistakes.

2. Iran has been contained. (besides fighting the civil war in Baghdad, that is the main reason we are in Iraq. And yes oil continues to flow from the region.)

3. Libya has become civil.

4. North Korea is still uncivil but is contained.

5. Northern Ireland is finally at peace. (Because the Patriot Act stopped the flow of money from foreign and USA IRA sympathizers ).

6. The Jews and Palestineans are being separated by walls (analogous to the two Czech republics). Hopefully the walls will follow the 1948 UN accords.

7. Bin Laden has been cornered under a rock in Western Pakistan since 9/11.(And we are in Afghanistan to keep him there).

8. Fanatical Islam has basically been contained to the Middle East but a wall between India and Pakistan would be a plus for world peace.

8. And the stock markets and economies around the globe continue to show good growth and opportunity for the common stock holders.

So George and his guys and gals have not been perfect but there are some major accomplishments. Bill Clinton and his crew definitely had their accomplishments but were not "pretty wingie talking thingies" either.

And, btw, hi, Jihadist. :) Hope you had a good weekend with the ocean. *Now* I don't know if I'm supposed to be an 'idolater,' an 'atheist,' or even an 'Islamic,' now. :) *Phwoo.*

Seems I'm to think *everyone* wants to suppress *my* faith, now. Why am I the one not scared, here?

Cause, as Jihadist observed about the 'dreaded atheist Commies,' against whom the early Taliban were basically *created* by certain American would-be-theocrats, (as well as Saddam Hussein, and the Saudi regime that made snotnosed rich kid Osama feel so unloved, ...and the Shah in Iran that really kicked off the radicalism in the first place,)

...you *can't* suppress faith.

It's not even possible.

I should know.

I'm a Pagan.

How bout we all wise up, here. Let's not forget time's a wasting while *all* our kids' world and future is being poisoned in quite literal ways while fanatics can't get over themselves, and fascists laugh all the way to the bank, ...and this nonsense is being used as a distraction.

As for ideas of eternal rewards and all justifying it, well, I plan on being back again to see the results of what we do, and, frankly, if this isn't the same people doing the same dumb things over and over again with even *more* unexamined karma, well, you coulda fooled me.

As for *either* of these big religions' stated missions to 'convert the world,' in the words of a very loud punk rock song:

"Please don't ask...
I will refuse."

You can wish it or wash it, but say what you will, that's just me right now.

Hey, fights happen, sometimes.

But especially with fanatics and terrorizers, *never, ever* assume an opponent is playing to 'win.'

Especially by *your* arrogant standards.

See the whole board, if you want to be such a great 'defender.'

If you want to *help,* try seeing a *human being* once in a while.

Anyway, Frank, maybe the idea you lack here is the idea that it isn't 'wishy-washy' to compromise ideals of pluralism in order to do incompetent and harmful things about a complex situation you don't understand, just cause you can call it 'evil.'

As Concerned pointed out, though, (apparently just in terms of 'Here's another reason Islam is evil,) there *is* no central authority to say, 'Change Islam by authority,' ...well, what are you going to do, then, to stop the actions you call evil?

As far as *I'm* concerned, we didn't appropriately blow the crap out of the Taliban, who had it coming long before 9/11, because Bush took the resources from that to carry out his ill-advised 'Crusade' in Iraq.

And because of people like you, willing to be led around by blind hatred, and who refuse to know the *difference,* or *stop to think what we're doing,* we've *already lost* most of the tools and resources and respect we could have used to enhance freedom in the world.

It's not "Wishy-washy" to refuse to be fascist.

It's not "Wishy-washy" to refuse to dumb down.

Cause one way I do *not* want to face a face of Lady I serve is ...eye-level, pounding my fist in sand, and crying out, "You maniacs!"

I've told you before that I know darn well what that Koran has been used to justify, as well as what that Bible of yours that seems to teach *you*...

You seem to be taking such pains to define Islam as systemically-'evil,' then you go ahead and define a polytheistic person like me as 'Islamic.'

What, to make me a 'valid target' in whatever you have in mind, but won't say, for someone to do about it?

I'm sure it's 'non-wishy-washy.'

And stupid.

If you *believe* there's a global Islamic threat, even, being a righteous *moron* about it isn't going to *help.*

Gods.

Anyway, as for 'keeping me in check,' consider that you didn't even know what game I was playing.

I didn't expect to convince you of anything, just while you're spamming, to show where your thinking goes.

Now I'm an 'Islamic' 'enemy' to hate, right?

You still have no practical answers, but sure do have a way of finding, 'enemies,' don't you?

Check. Mate.

Jihadist and Paganplace: Islamic propaganists? "Wishy-Washing" the koranic calls for global conversion to Islam??

You know, Concerned, if you and Frank aren't the same guy, it's pretty hard to tell in the first place. :)

'Neither' of you have anything constructive to offer about the matters that seem to obsess you.

If 'neither' of you care to understand a word I'm saying, your assertions about me haven't got a whole lot of force, do they?

Let's look at this, shall we?

"to pagan the islamic"

Since you were pointing out just earlier how I could expect to be croaked under Islamic law,
that's pretty silly, isn't it?

"what you know about being a pagan would rattel around like a bb in a box car."

I like it that way. Gotta have something for the future, after all. Only problem is,

"What boxcar?" :)

"i know more about being a pagan that you do - and i know next to nothing."

Well, we're becoming aware of the latter, at least. But you've proven you have worse than no information, before.

"so now we know you are islamic let me respond to you."

Now that we know you've been tying one on, respond to yourself. :)

Hello Rob Adams,

If you are still interested check back on the Al Molher site.

The best refutation I have seen to Christopher Hitchens is from Douglas Wilson on christianitytoday.com. The atheist can never satisfactorily answer the big questions. See for yourself if you are interested.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/search/?query=douglas+wilson&x=0&y=0

Frank,

You are doing a great job keeping "wishy wash" Paganplace in check.

I am sure the liberal Islamics out there would really like to cleanse their Book of Death.

Unfortunately unlike other religions, there is no "head" person/group controlling Islam. Has anyone ever listed the various Islamic sects? Sunnis, Shiites, Talibaners, Sufis, Wahhabis, "Bin Ladiners", Kahrijites, Ismailis, Zaidis, Fatimids, Assassins aka Nizaris, Alawis, Druze, Ahmadiyya and Baha'i????

A short description of each gives strong evidence that one is crazier than the other i.e. no central leadership is therefore possible.

Mr. Eboo Patel

Excellent piece.

Of course many would contend that God is cruel, deceitful and sadistic. Certainly, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin , Mugabe et all, perhaps as incarnation of God, inflicted cruelty, deceit and sadism upon man. And some partners do engage in maso-sadism in their bedrooms doing God's work there too. A manifestation of love too it seems. Can't say which Holy Text that's from. But man has free will.

And yes, the solution to the problem is not denigration of religion a la Hitchens, Harris and Hirsi Ali. Faith did survive suppression of religion in the former Soviet Union and Eastern bloc countries. Faith helps hundreds of millions survive the cruelties and sadism of the communist gods there. 300 million Chinese now identify themselves as adherents of a faith in spite of of over 0 years of atheistic Maoism (the deceits, cruelties and sadism of the Cultural Revolution and all that are acts of God no doubt).

Atheism imposed by force or by argued by reason and/or science apparently still seems neither persuasive nor satisfying. Obviously, algorithim and algebra, or the theory of the big bang, or the breeding and herding habits of dwarf sharks is not as satisfying as a poetry by Emily Dickinson, a painting by Marcel Duchamps, or a symphony by Beethoven. Nor do they make us understand what humans are capable of.

Einstein said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge". Take that quote in whatever context one wants too. And it will show up the power of one's imagination in the face of knowledge or to quest for knowledge. Harris, Hirsin Ali and Hitchens are incapable of imagination. Therefore they are critics. Would love to see them all come up with original ideas like Einstein instead of regurgitating old ones. Eintein, never mind he is an atheist or agnostic, did increse the wonder, power and mystery of God with a capital "G" for believers.

If anyone wants to discuss God with a small "g", do look up the ancient gods of ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome etc. Superheroes now supplanted by Batman, Superman, Spider-Man et al to adulate and hero worhip according to how they relate to and resonate with one.

If I were living in ancient Egypt, I would probably be worshipping Isis as the best of the small gods/superheroes for me. Now, I think the Silver Surfer is best of them all. Alas, they are all given mere human characteristics(love, hate, fear)and features with some minute and specific extra powers that we all fantasize to have within our abilities and desires for abilities.

It would seem that humans are incapable still of the full imagination and comprehension of a power beyond belief. Dare to believe and you are a believer. The nervous nellies seems to have so much fear of the unknown, and needed many proofs to be comfortable on the known and unknown. Imagine that.

If you're not in or talking about a 'war,' how can I be 'defending?'

What do *you* think you're 'defending' by refusing to see anything *but* threat in people?

You talk about how *horrible* you think Islam is, and nothing but. I have no illusions about these things, ...where I have a problem is your *insistence* that Islam be these things for you, and nothing but. ...that it's somehow helpful to call people 'evil' while insisting anything wrong that's done in the name of your *own* religion isn't worth considering by comparison.

I think you spoke the nub of your problem, ...you seem to have no idea what the 'point' of your own, never mind anyone else's religion would be if *not* for the slavish following of words, that can be taken to endorse or command horrors as easily as commend virtue or something.

You still won't say what you think anyone ought to *do* about this, except perhaps ignore the injustices done in the name of Christianity.

"and what is your tribe and who is the lady you write about?"

That would be telling. :) What would you do if I told you? :)

"as long as your tribe is not in a state of war and your lady does not demand anything of me - "

Ah, if She does, you'll know about it sooner or later, no need for me to go trying to guess for you. :)

"enjoy. but if islam - the islam you are defending - has its way - your tribe will not exist and your lady a myth on the scrap heap of history - along with your broken body."

Eh, don't worry, it's not quite as scary once you been through it a few times. :) Rumors of our 'heapiness' have always been greatly exaggerated. :)

Of course we have the right to live and practice and 'enjoy,' ...and to carry on without what we build being trashed all the time. But we wouldn't have much if it were all about that kind of fear in the *first* place.

The oppression of people, in body, mind, and spirit, that's *serious business.*

Serious enough to consider what we can *do* about it. And maybe not spend all our effort on what we *can't.*

If it's good to be free, *show it.* You can't *impose* Liberty. Especially not through hatred and defamation. If you decide that it's time to take on the wielding of power over something, then it's on *you* not just to 'justify' it by saying, 'Evil,' but to be conscious of the means you use and the possible effects of your actions.

"pagan - maybe you should be concerned what the would would look like if islam takes over."

I'm a little more concerned with what the world is shaping up to look like, *now* when both Christianity and Islam are being stirred up to *try* 'taking over' as the only way to be safe from the demons you're making out of each other.

"and if we follow that bs he is spewing now:
"In other words, it is a problem of sociology, not theology; of institutions, not religious sources; of what people do, not what scripture says."
then we would not need any religion at all"

Is that what you're afraid of. Nope, we wouldn't "need" religion at all, not to defend ourselves against *other* religions, anyway.

Take away that *need* and maybe you could be *enjoying* your own religion on a Sunday morning instead of trying to pre-emptively 'defend' it.

"and every religion would be useless"

I think the problem is figuring out and accepting what they *are* good for, instead of thinking the only 'use' of a religion is as a sword to defend the sword with. :)

It's like, a country makes a nuke, feels a little safer, ...then someone else makes a nuke to feel safe from the other nuke, and then you're building more and more nukes to defend the other nukes from nukes, and next thing you know the human world's kind of a raving lunatic with a gun to its own head.

"- including islam - because the theology, religious sources and scripture would not matter at all. and if that is the case - why bother?"

Why, indeed, bother.
Why bother with 'sources and scripture' that *tell* you that?

A little saying from my tribe: "Lady gives us what we *want* when we don't "need" it anymore.

In other words, you could say the world doesn't exist for the purpose of handing out crutches when we're kicking each other really hard in the knee all the time. :)

Certainly, when people evaluate their actions in comparison to the 'eternal damnation' of their beliefs, ...it's no surprise the low standards show.

Religion is the work of man and independent of whether or not there is a God.

Religions are terrorist organizations that threaten, terrorize victims with another work of man, hell.

Hell, what it's all about is the key to understanding religion, terrorists.

http://www.hoax-buster.org has pictures of the oldest hell of record. Hell is the work of a known man. He was called Pharaoh. Is there a connection, the meaning of the word 'Pharaoh' and hell?

The three great faiths are followons to ancient Egyptian religion because hell is the key ingredient. Without hell terrorists have no place to get rid of their victims and avoid retaliation in the next life.

The next life will happen even if there is no God. Like religion, eternal life is independent of God. Is eternal life the work of man?

There is nothing one can do to cause eternal life and there is nothing one can do to prevent it. Hell is a lie made by man aimed at shortstopping eternal life on an individual basis. Religion is a man mad con, J-Hawking the nebol bridge.

Anyone who threatens people with the fires of hell is a terrorists of the highest order. Killers take but one of an infinites set of lives while hell threatens to destroy life altogether. The pope, Billy Graham, all who threaten with hell are terrorists.

Is terrorizing children with threats of hell child abuse? Does the US government not support terrorists on the grounds it's moral, charitable even? Check out the tax laws that establish religion, terrorism at it's zenith.

The "Describe Mohammed" Poll is complete. And the top choice is:

1. Mohammed the Great Hallucinator Of Mythical Wingie Thingies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In second place was:

2. Mohammed the Great Profiteer.

"Enforces death."

Interesting phrase, Frank.

I still think your religion ought to be more concerned about its *own* people feeling justified by itself to threaten free societies and peopel in them who don't believe as they do.

Certainly, if you disapprove of the actions of some Muslims, then trying to polarize the world only makes people *more* extremist. If you don't like to see the religious violence in the world, maybe you shouldn't be on a personal crusade of hate.

Maybe you should be *supporting* Mr. Patel's efforts here, or at least showing some comprehension of *his* words rather than calling him 'Boy' and trying to spam down discussion on every thread with the same stuff.

*sigh.* Sad, really.

" Joy-full:

I find it highly illuminating that so many atheists are posting to an On Faith section. "

You mean you realize that the effects of each others' beliefs in public life are something one might observe? Wow. :)

Of course, there's atheists here, whether it's to try and deal with the fact certain religions are being used to get in their face, devalue them, and erase anyone's but their own voice from American public life?

Yeah, I mean, vocal atheists aren't always the most understanding people in the world, but it's not like they have an 'orthodoxy' about not insulting people back after they've been insulted all their lives. :)

I mean, hey, my beliefs look sillier than yours, cause people are more *used* to yours, but most atheists don't come after me cause: you'd think I'd get mocked more by atheists, if they were really all that fussed about the idea of someone else thinking about Spirit, ...but:

a) Well, my Gods never said there was anything particularly wrong with atheists, or other beliefs, and my crowd tend to act as such, apart from wincing and ducking a bit out of habit if someone makes a *really outstanding* statement of hubris and insult where we think that's a bad idea, ...and,

b) I'm not making too many absurd assertions about the physical nature of the world, as well as which people are in charge of saying it is, especially when those people are almost *always wrong* these days. :)

Well, OK, and c) my faith community values 'mirth *and* reverence,' which isn't to say we don't take ourselves seriously, it's just that we *also* can take ourselves lightly, so it's hard to get a rise out of us just by pointing out no one can prove much about what they think Gods are. :)

"Could it really be that they are desperately seeking the God whom they so deride?"

Maybe they're seeking something *else,* too though I couldn't blame them in some ways, for just wishing religion in general would go away.

Wishing doesn't make it so, but on the 'religious' end of things, I think we could do with being a little nicer to 'them.'

Faith and reason aren't *by nature* at odds: frankly the problems tend to come when *religion* oversteps its authority.

"The thing about faith is, you must first make the leap, only then do you get the proof."

That, as they'll tell you, is a lousy standard of 'proof' in certain languages of thought.

I'll quote an atheist hero of mine, whatever he might say about my religion:

'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.' An 'extraordinary' experience, whether you've had it yourself or read about someone else's, *does not constitute the same kind of 'proof.'*

Just because your reason is *overwhelmed* doesn't mean that everything ever put in your head about such things is 'The One Truth,' and that reason can *stop* there.

I'd say that'll happen soon enough, why rush it and mess up the world over it? :)

If you wonder why some atheists can be so fussed about the contents of your head, and whether everyone believes in a particular God or not, though,

...They learned it from you. :)

"And the solution to the problem is not denigration of religion a la Hitchens, Harris and Hirsi Ali, but new religious leadership that understands and acts on the dimensions of faith that are life-affirming instead of suffocating."

Right on Ebo....see yourself as the new leadership my friend you are not alone.

God said let there be light and you are the light let's get it on.

Spirito Santos
Jah Adonai

I find it highly illuminating that so many atheists are posting to an On Faith section. Could it really be that they are desperately seeking the God whom they so deride? The thing about faith is, you must first make the leap, only then do you get the proof.

Religion (humans seeking God the best way they know how) may be man-made, but God is not. I cannot even begin to list the countless ways God has been active in my life, blessing, comforting, providing, guiding, even rebuking at times. I came to God at 29 when I was sufferering from a debilitating illness from which I had been bedridden for 7 months. (That was 20 years ago this year; my health was restored and I have had perfect health ever since.)

Jesus says I am the Way the Truth the Life and no one comes to the Father but through Me. Since that experience of accepting God at His word, I can't even begin to list my answered prayers: the home and the jobs that have found me; the people and/or money that have shown up in the right time or in the right amount for a particular need, the way God has prepared me in advance for challenges I was to face; the two serious one-car rollover auto accidents I walked away from without a scratch... the peace, joy, and insight God gives about this life He has created ... Athiests trying to live your lives on your own... you don't know what you are missing!

Most of what I read on this site sounds like the ravings of a bunch of people who have chosen to disregard the way God has invited us to come to Him, and are nonetheless angry because as a consequence, they don't get to experience Him and know Him. If someone gave you directions to a party wouldn't you follow the directions if you expected to get there?

I will never leave you nor forsake you, says the Lord.

And, please pardon the terrible editing, there.

One line there should read "Even Reagan couldn't get away with trying to 'humanize' the SS."

Funny, I was just singing along with 'Bonzo Goes To Bitburg' this morning in a fit of nostalgia. :)

Anyway, that line got scrambled, somehow.

You at once demand the concept of 'Evil' and render it useless, I think, Frank.

I don't have to believe or presume someone is this thing called 'Evil' in order to oppose them, or their actions, or disagree with their systems.

Heck, I don't have to think someone's evil to *hit* someone, if circumstance came down to it.

Sometimes what I see as most 'good' in people happens *despite* their beliefs, rather than *because* of them. Heck, I think the good in Christians is more often *despite* what the Bible says than *because* of it.

Doesn't mean there's nothing good, there.

Reductio ad Hitlerum, or whatever they called it, doesn't tend to prove much because it'd almost *impossible* to see anything 'good' in an SS officer now, because the very *idea* has become an *image* of 'Evil.'

Certainly, 'guilt by association' has more force there because the SS *were* an association.

(Heck, people try to associate me as a Pagan *with* Nazis in order to 'prove their religion is right,' because the SS used some appropriated occult stuff in the service of nationalism and fascism, ...and they try to associate *queer* people with Nazis because there were some prominent homosexuals in the SA, a somewhat-rival right wing group that Hitler *purged* when he had his own things set up. Hitler and Nazism had no love for homosexuals himself, ...in fact, they were rounded up and put in concentration camps because *Hitler* thought it was 'evil.' Like Jews.)

So, when you start calling people evil, where does it end?

What do you say to kids who decide to *emulate* the SS cause they were made to believe all the sorrow in their lives is because of strangers with 'evil religion' and the 'wrong ethnicity?'

(Apart from "Nazi Punks *ahem* Off:" I've actually physically confronted these types in my checkered punk-rock youth. A gratifying exercise in some ways, but maybe not essentially-productive, except for use in later example. :) )

I mean, come on, even et Reagan couldn't eveaway with trying to 'humanize' the SS.

But did they think they were doing 'Right?' Going along with the crowd? The hatreds of the time? Sure.

The problem with calling people and systems 'Evil' is that that's a sure way of making some people *stop* examining what they're doing. Or what they're seeing.

It's a way of blindness.

Heck, saying, 'They're like Nazis because I don't understand key differences between single-payer health care programs and National 'Socialism,' call the Democrat next door 'Evil' and I don't have to really look at think about what's going on.'

And that's how the SS *happened.*
It's how this *terrorism* you fear *happens.*

It's how all the death and suffering and bitterness in Iraq *happens.

Call it 'evil' if you like, I just don't see how *helpful* it's supposed to be.

Michael.

I look at spirituality as transcending religion. I think there are two approaches that we need to try to use. One use our spirituality to suspend dogma temporarily to see the commonalities between religions. Even if one religion is ‘more right’ or ‘more complete’ than another there are similarities. Let’s get agreement on that and use that as a baseline for understanding one another.

Secondly regardless of your religion, faith, belief actually live that what you believe. This is a concept we have touched on in a number of other threads. We referred to it as living as a spiritual being, not a being of condition. A relative example is if you believe in peace then actually live it even if your enemies attack you. You will not change their minds by attacking back. You change minds by demonstrating that which you believe.

I have not observed that to not be true of the United States. I am not picking on Christianity or Christians but I will use this as an example since we are a predominantly Christian nation. I don’t recall the bible teaching get what you can or protect your interest. Yet that is what we have allowed our government and corporations to become.

That is because as individuals we have not lived the spirituality/religion/belief we say we are. We react to the conditions around us. Survival is the driving force in third world countries. Survival is the driving force for the poor in any country. Economics is the driving force in developed countries, corporations and for the general public. That is the conditions that surround us. By allowing the conditions to have control we don’t make decisions that are in alignment with our spirituality (whatever that may be).

But if we flip this around and act based on spiritual beliefs (not religious dogma) then we align the tools, like economics, politics, communication, with our spiritual desires. Dogma is not bad within a religion but you can not apply it to the masses since not everyone marches to the same tune.

This is why we need a common set of core spiritual concepts people can agree on. That way we maintain individual freedom yet have our world develop along spiritual guidelines. Some suggestions:

We are all One
Serve others first.
There’s enough.
Do unto others.

I think even atheists may agree to these. If we kept these 4 concepts in mind with every decision we made how would that affect our world?

Well, I think all this stuff certain people like to say makes all Muslims bad people whatever they say, is probably just a strong case against scriptural literalism... People definitely would seem to have to read that stuff selectively to use it at all: but certainly you could look at Emperor Constantine, who picked what went in the Bible and wrote the Christian creed, and see he wasn't precisely a paragon of morality on a lot of matters.

I see a lot of double-standards involved in people who think some *other* book should be taken as 'ultimate universal divine law' especially when drowning out someone who wants to change some of the destructive aspects of his *own* religion.

Even if you think you can 'change' people that way, I doubt that's the way to go about anything, unless of course your goal is polarization and entrenchment and war.

Books don't justify anything. That's the conclusion I'd start by drawing.

Actually God is Love. Whatever you do out of Love you are doing for God. Even if you have all the "right dogma" but you aren't at least trying to live in Love then it really doesn't add up to nothing. Knowing God's Name really isn't the answer either because God is not the egomaniac that a lot of people think that He is. A lot of people are in for a great shock when they realize that Jesus said "Come follow Me" not to browbeat and condemn everyone else and act like you are so superior to everyone else. Judge not, condemn no one might sound like simple words and they are but they are not exactly easy to actually live by. God's Kingdom is for all of His children. God's Plan is His Plan and it will come to fruition. Don't we try to put God into a box and give it all kinds of "religious labels". God is a searcher of hearts and minds not of relilgious affiliations or lack thereof. Jesus is Who He said that He is and that is God Incarnate not a second-rate prophet like the god of islam says that He is. I do not hold it against Mohammad that he was deceived by the deceiver, do you? Christianity is not a religion but a covenential relationship between God and a person, but calling yourself a christian does not mean that you are one. So much of what I hear and read being said in Jesus's Name is such vile hatred, it is sad. Judaism is not a religion either but a covenential relationship between God and a people. Islam is a religion and it is a religion of world domination. Like I said God, the True Living Triune Triumphant God is a searcher of hearts and minds and it is important what you do and why you do it and also what you know. I happen to be the New Testament Moses, I didn't ask to be me but when I found out I was me I said Yes. God's Plan is for all of His children to be in His Kingdom and they will be. Like our brother Jesus told us night is coming, be ready. On the seventh day God blest, rested and made holy, it will get here. We happen to still be in the sixth day. In case anyone forgot Jesus won the keys to hell and death and they will be used, one day everyone will be glad that God has a Plan, and has had It before anything at all was created. Take Care, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Why does the sponsor of this blog continue to inflict a fool like Mr. Patel on us?

Because Islam is a recent religion in comparison to Christianity and Judaism the actions and words of its founder, Muhammad bin Abdullah have been accurately documented.

The first biography of Muhammad was Sirat Rasulallah by Ibn Ishaq.

Then came the hadiths that borrowed from the Sirat but also took note of what people who remembered what had been said about Muhammad. The Hadiths faithfully record Muhammad's actions and words.

Finally there is the Koran which for the most part was the word of Muhammad inserted into the mouth of Allah, the Arabic god Muhammad fashioned from his family god Allah. Note his father was a polytheist and named Abdullah or slave of Allah. That is how many Arabs named themselves, the slave of such and such family god. So Allah was clearly part of the Arab pantheon of gods and godesses that Muhammad destroyed except for allah.

The portrait of Muhammad that one inescapably draws from these original sources is that he was a murderer, a bandit, a pedophile, a slave monger, a blasphemer, but also a very brilliant man, one of those rare species that managed to fool most of the people most of the time. Those he could not fool , he either killed or expelled from Arabia. For example he had the poetess Asma bint Marwan murdered while she was sleeping with her young children, one still being breast fed, merely because she exposed him as a fraud. She did not bear any arms nor did she physically attack him. But her poetry was so powerful and so popular that it threatened to topple Muhammad. So much for Muhammadan claims that he was a man of peace and a democrat.

But his main opponents were the Jews. The Jews were harder working and more intelligent than the Arabs, were richer, were farmers and had been in Arabia as long as if not longer than the Arabs. They owned half if not more of Arabia if the same rules of land ownership were to be applied to them as would be applied to the Arabs.

But there two problems. They refused to acknowledge him as a Jewish prophet of Yahweh. They were also very rich and Muhammad wanted their wealth. He regularly carried out raids and robbed the Jews. In one instance he murdered 800 male Jews in one night, stole their land and wealth and sold their widows and orphans into slavery. Finally all surviving Jews were kicked out of Arabia.

Can this man have been a prophet of God? can the god he created and called allah be God? How can we Mr. Eboo Patel expect us to build upon Islam as a foundation?

BecauseIslam is a recent religion in comparison to Christianity and Judaism the actions and words of its founder, Muhammad bin Abdullah have been accurately documented.

The first biography of Muhammad was Sirat Rasulallah by Ibn Ishaq.

Then came the hadiths that borrowed from the Sirat but also took note of what people who remembered what had been said about Muhammad. Hadiths faithfully record Muhammad's actions and words.

Finally there is the Koran which for the most part was the word of Muhammad inserted into the mouth of Allah, the Arabic god Muhammad fashioned from his family god Allah. Note his father was a polytheist and named Abdullah or slave of Allah. That is how many Arabs named themselves, the slave of such and such family god. So Allah was clearly part of the Arab pantheon of gods and goddesses that Muhammad destroyed except for allah.

The portrait of Muhammad that one inescapably draws from these original sources is that he was a murderer, a bandit, a pedophile, a slave monger, a blasphemer, but also a very brilliant man, one of those rare species that managed to fool most of the people most of the time. Those he could not fool , he either killed or expelled from Arabia. For example he had the poetess Asma bint Marwan murdered while she was sleeping with her young children, one still being breast fed, merely because she exposed him as a fraud. She did not bear any arms nor did she physically attack him. But her poetry was so powerful and so popular that it threatened to topple Muhammad. So much for Muhammadan claims that he was a man of peace and a democrat.

But his main opponents were the Jews. The Jews were harder working and more intelligent than the Arabs, were richer, were farmers and had been in Arabia as long as if not longer than the Arabs. They owned half if not more of Arabia if the same rules of land ownership were to be applied to them as would be applied to the Arabs.

But there two problems. They refused to acknowledge him as a Jewish prophet of Yahweh. They were also very rich and Muhammad wanted their wealth. He regularly carried out raids and robbed the Jews. In one instance he murdered 800 male Jews in one night, stole their land and wealth and sold their widows and orphans into slavery. Finally all surviving Jews were kicked out of Arabia.

Can this man have been a prophet of God? can the god he created be God? How can we Mr. Eboo Patel expect us to build upon Islam as a foundation?

correction
No,completely wrong.THE MARSH MUST BE DRIED.

my post may 26,2007 1:50 AM

Paganplace and Rob,
Thank you for your reasoned comments, clearly non-dogmatic pluralism is the answer but it requires too much from most participants. Dogma and religion are conjoined twins that, when separated, are neither dogma nor religion - they become spirituality and law.

I have no problem with spirituality and law is mearly the expression of the social contract that has been developed over a million years or so of human evolution.

But neither of these things is sufficuent to explain human behavior, we change in ways that cannot be explained by either spirituality or law, as both of them are stagnating forces. Something else fits into the equation and that is where I look to find answers. Religion is just not enough, and, for me, is not a part of the equation at all, but hang eutopia as well...

''He is true and compassionate and merciful''
Your Allah is compassionate and merciful for only 'true believer muslims',the subjugated ones who worship in arabic language 150 times in a month.

Allah hates and curses non-muslims,even secular muslims,ninety percent of world population.
I(Allah) will cast FEAR into the hearts of those who disbelieve(non-muslims) 8.12 is it compassionate?

Those who reject Faith(only islam) and die rejecting,on them is the curse of Allah.Cow chapter 161 is this merciful?

If anyone wants 'freedom over slavery,peace over war,pluralism over totalitarianism' should set free from stone age mentality and cult of violence.

Blame the individuals not faith(cult) means blame the mosquito not marsh.
No,completely wrong.THE MARSH MUST BE CRIED.

'New religious leadership that understands and acts on the dimension of faith'(whatever it means)
1400 years passed,couldnt you find yet any leader such as?

The psychopath-made cult,this is the problem.

“The people have always invented their gods.Thats why they're all different.”

Using your argument we can conclude that John F. Kennedy did not exist since people have different opinions about him. The same could be said of Martin Luther king; some people think of him as a defender of human freedom and dignity while others see him only as a trouble maker, a communist, and an anarchist. Having different views of God does not negate his existence.

Can't believe nobody quoted Voltaire who said
that if there were no god the people would invent one.
Well...they did didn't they?
The people have always invented their gods.
Thats why they're all different.
And why people are still fighting about which god is
the true one.

The offensive portion of Mr. Patel’s statement is not his assertion as to the existence of a "God" figure. It is his false premise that only superstition can compel individuals to act ethically.
As an atheist I feel wholly compelled to act in an ethical manner as a means to a fulfilling existence. There are many blatantly unethical acts perpetrated by people who describe themselves as "believers". Furthermore, many of these acts are justified as interpretations of their particular deity's will.
Take for example the acts of Monica Goodling. She purposefully broke the law after accepting a role wherein she is had a responsibility to uphold the Constitution. Apparently she feels that her unethical acts are justified by a higher purpose? I expect she feels that God supports Republicans and therefore she was acting "ethically" when she threw proven people out of their jobs and replaced them on the basis of their loyalty to a political party.
So I advise Mr. Patel and all others who would use this premise as the basis for their argument to reconsider the position that "God Fearing" people can be expected to act ethically by default. That is the second false assertion from his statement.
Mr. Patel is either biased, ill informed, or dishonest. Any of these choices places his own ethical postion at risk.

You say:

"The heart of the question -- Is religion man-made? -- isn't whether or not God exists. (He does, and He is true and compassionate and merciful, but I am not interested in spending energy arguing about this with anyone)."

This is why Mr. Hitchens is correct and there is no point in dicussing anything with men like Mr. Patel.
He is not open to debate; he's convinced; he's true believer, and, therefore, irrelevant.

Thank you.

Bob

Michael.

First off I am an independent when it comes to religion. I pull what I find useful from each.

I think you are right in terms of religious rules, doctrine, dogma etc may be the wrong place to look for complete answers to freedom, peace and pluralism. With so many divergent religions you can’t say follow this and things will be fine. Unless we all convert to one religion it will be hard to overcome global problems by following one dogma.

I agree we need more than just religion.

Though I don’t know that we should totally disregard religion as being able to help on these issues. The doctrine (fine details of each religions story) in and of itself is a tool with religion and doesn’t not guarantee anything. However if the right person interprets these the right way amazing things can happen; Mother Theresa, Desmond Tutu, Gandhi, Martin Luther King.

Would these people have accomplished what they did without religion? I guess we will never know for sure. What you use to evolve your spirituality doesn’t matter (I guess for an atheist this would be straight morality?). What matters is that there is something (religion, spirituality, meditation, contemplation, pizza) that inspires you to help your fellow man then it is good.

Sometimes, Michael, it's helpful to think of 'religion' as like a language or an art form.

Whether you're 'inside' or 'outside' any one.

Religion can't *make* you free, and maybe shouldn't claim to. Especially not by demanding obedience.

Freedom's about more than just 'escaping bondage.'

Which is actually something a certain Lady taught me. :)

Quite a challenge, there.

Then again, it'd maybe be a little dull in some views of the world, if someone said, "Let my people go," and someone else said, "OK." :)

As some corporation said, "Where do you want to go today?"

The problem has never been whether your god exists, (he has been so conveniently out of the way the entire history of human kind as to be irrelevant anyway)the problem has alway been religion and its lack of ethics. Religion is the exact wrong place to look for "...an ethic that affirms freedom over slavery, peace over war, pluralism over totalitarianism." Religion's systems of power are antithetical to these ideas.

Humans that need freedom over slavery, peace over war, and pluralism over totalitarianism need more than religion can offer.

God is not an necessary ingredient to have a religion.

I mean, hey, did anyone notice how quickly we went from being told we were a nation just *brimming* with the 'spiritual, not religious,' to 'A Christian Nation?' (half full of heretic 'liberals,' who came out of nowhere, of course.)

Something tells me it's the *definitions* implied by the *questions in the polls* that changed so quickly with the media-driven politics, and not actually a sudden religious revival.

As for what to *do,* that's always been on us.

PETERAN:

If there is a God does that mean religion is the work of God? Men do lots of things. If there is a God are all the things men do God's work? Whether or not there is a God has nothing to do with men creating religion.

The men who created all the religions of today did it for money, their own personal gain and no other reason.

Who "married" those particular ideas, in the first place, Peter?

"the existence of God"

"the question of who made religion."

Certainly, if some religions were made to *depend* upon the assertion that the *religions* were "made by this God,"

Well, then, obeying those religions' dictates hangs a *lot* on accepting that premise.

That's why it's a "Big Question."

Now, if a religion isn't *premised* on being made by said God, the ideas aren't as co-dependent as those raised in the former sort are raised to believe.

It becomes something people *do* again.

Something we can evaluate. Have some perspective on.

If there is a God (and He's one of the ones being worshipped), then He must have created His religion. If there is no God, then all religion must be man-made. Maybe I'm being particularly dense, but I don't see how one can divorce the existence of God from the question of who made religion. Of course, people distort relions, but..

Ah, I did miss the sarcasm, though it did make me think I might have your name mixed up with another poster. :)

Analysis: I think he was trying to establish the intent of his question, not really *make* an assertion.

I know there's usually an implied little barb in there when it comes from certain voices we're used to hearing drone on and on, while they try to swing things back around to *thinking as though* their 'assertions' were the answer, but I don't see that here.

I think this is a practical and important question, given that like it or not *religion is around,* and, yeah, people do have a capacity for something we call 'faith,' whatever extraordinary claims might then be made *about* it.

Frankly, I could make some 'extraordinary claims' of my own, but I think that I both lack the necessary 'extraordinary proof,' (Sorry, Dr. Sagan, just didn't think to have certain experiences notarized. :) ) ...and have gained some idea that that's not the important part when it comes to *what people do,* anyway. :)

I think one reason we don't see a lot of Tibetan Buddhists chiming in on these discussions is, well, "What if the 'supernatural' was *no big deal?*"

I think that's one of the presumptions of both certain adherents to monotheism and 'atheism,' that, 'If this exists, it's a big worldshaking deal.'

I mean, if it exists, it always has, and a few cargo-cults aside, we've done more or less OK, right?

There's kind of *assumptions* that "If this exists, it means "God," or "If this exists it means "Not-God," or "It may as well mean that this happened once, cause it was "God," and that means the book is God, but if anything else like that ever happened, it's obviously Satan:"

And on and on.

People used to treat reading *words* like we're doing right *now* as a totally-magical act in and of itself, never mind sending these words all around the world carried by unseen forces.

There's still a magic to words.

Maybe just not like we thought.

Hey, it could be *better.* :)

Is that *really* the key question here?

What do we do with our experience.

That's the question.

Dear Papganplace -

Thanks for the comment.

I don't think Mr Patel meant to "set aside" an argument for the sake of his column, otherwise he wouldn't have made the claim that god does exist.

My post to Patel was offered in the same way that his post was offered - ie: making assertations that have the effect of rejecting contrary views out of hand. I would have been well-advised to include a sarcasm emoticon in the post.

OK, Mr. Mark:

"Sorry, Mr Patel, but your worldview is too easy to dismiss out of hand...and your opinions along with it."

I think what you're dismissing out of hand is everything else he said while quoting him explicitly setting his *creed* aside.

I hardly find that a logical basis to 'dismiss his worldview out of hand.'

It's possible, as Mr. Patel was saying while sharing this view, to *set aside* the question of 'Does this or that God exist,'

"The heart of the question -- Is religion man-made? -- isn't whether or not God exists."

If your worldview can't deal with *that* question, well, umm, whatever.

I think the question of where we as people who *can't control other people's religion,* *spend our energy* is a very valid and relevant one, even though our *religions* maybe couldn't be more different in many ways.

Now, I'm not willing to absolve, in my mind, in blanket fashion, the *systems* people make of all harm done based on the assertion 'That *must* be just a nefarious individual,'

But who would I be to 'judge' a worldview I 'dismissed out of hand?' (Is that even possible?)

I may be standing in a different place, but I see the same pressing question as Mr. Patel addresses here.

We're all responsible for our worldviews. And, just maybe, our *systems.*

Now, it may be my belief that leaving deified 'religious scriptures' lying around for any nefarious individuals to pick up is just *asking* for trouble later, (you can control the 'content' of what you write, but not the *context,* or even the language it's written in) but it's not like *no one* can seem to handle em personally.

Especially if it means calling for (and just maybe *being part of*) "new religious leadership that understands and acts on the dimensions of faith that are life-affirming instead of suffocating."

I see no need to either 'denigrate' or 'dismiss' there.

And the poll votes continue to be counted. With over 70% of the poll completed, "Mohammed the Great Hallucinator of Pretty Wingie Thingies", continues to be the choice description of Islam's founder.

Other descriptions are welcomed from On Faith contributors.

Recommended descriptions are:
1. Mohammed the Great Hallucinator Of Mythical Wingie Thingies?
2. Mohammed the Great Prophet?
3. Mohammed the Great Profiteer?
4. Mohammed the Lover of Many Women Young and Not So Young?
5. Mohammed the Man of Many Myths?
6. Too Much Time in the Sun, Mohammed?
7. Mohammed, Man Made by Many Militant Scribes?

The poll will remain open for another week. Enter today to win a chance for a free trip to Eboo's Islamic Fairy Land.

Is there any money involved, for the ones who erect the buildings with steeple?

Religion is the oldest of the cons and the obvious work of MAN.

Faith is first in the sacred scriptures and then the man who has studied them. He is also the man under the steeple with hand out collecting money for,, for,, don't tell me,, I'll get it,, ah,, God,, no not God, himself. He needs the money to erect higher steeples to real in more suckers.

All sacred scriptures are hoaxes. There is one or more Gods, undeniable. But has any one or more ever spoken to a man and authorized him to collect money in His name? The big money goes to those who lead the most people to where?

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul says go to the steeple and buy a ticket to hell. Not only is there a God but there is also a Devil, the larceny in the hearts of men who build buildings with steeples.

I think people are misreading Mr. Patel's argument. He is not saying that the argument of whether God exists is one that is not for discussion, but merely that he is disinterested in involving himself in it -- especially at this time. I'm inclined to agree with him. Whether God exists or not is a matter of faith, of which I deeply believe, but I would not try to convince somebody of my belief and wouldn't stand by to listen to somebody trying to tell me the reasons that I shouldn't believe. For a forum like this, it is important to focus on the topic at hand, whether religion is man-made, and not degenerate into an argument that nobody can win.

I have no doubt that religion is man made. Many people seem to agree. The bigger question is why did man create religion. Early on it was to try to account for the unexplainable. Sacrifice to the God of fire so the volcano does not erupt.

As man evolves so does our idea about God which brought about more advanced religions we see today. I apologize in advance for those who have already see on other threads what I am about to write, but I think it is relevant to this discussion. We have terabytes of information on virtually every science and field of study and we still have not grasped a full understanding of the sciences and medicine. Why do we think that in comparison a trivial amount of data that is contained in the religious scriptures of all the world’s religions brings us closure on what is the spiritual and metaphysical realm?

The error we appear to be making now is we think we are done defining/understanding God and we all think we are right!

There is nothing wrong with challenging religion, but outright attacking is counter productive. It’s like the saying “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. While I am not a big proponent of guns by any stretch, I think that same analogy applies to religion.

“Religion doesn’t kill people, people kill people”.

Religion is simply a tool that people can use to further society or to limit it. It is supposed to be a tool to help people get closer to God and help them understand God. If it is not doing that then it is the wrong tool for that person.

Mr Patel says, "god exists, end of argument."

And I'm supposed to take the rest of his column seriously.

Sorry, Mr Patel, but your worldview is too easy to dismiss out of hand...and your opinions along with it.

The heart of the question -- Is religion man-made? -- isn't whether or not God exists. (He doesn't, which is good, because, as described by the Abrahamic religions, He is deceitful, sadistic, and unmerciful, but I am not interested in spending energy arguing about this with anyone).