Religion and rationalism: enemies of mankind
Reader comment on: The Politics of Bin Laden
in response to reader comment: I read the Koran. I did not pick over it.
Submitted by RnBram (Canada), May 5, 2011 16:47
A false alternative is not a logical inverse, unless the subordinate terms are exhaustive, they were not.
Pitt thoroughly ignored the source (Surah 2 - Al Baqara) I provided to back up my comments. But he had to, so as to claim I was "spewing vitriol". That reference is more than is needed to justify my point. His insult and evasion are not a rational argument.
The President of a country that separates religion and state should vehemently oppose Sharia law, which Islamists insist upon. Therefore Islamists must be openly opposed, just as Reagan said to the Communists, "Tear down this wall!". (No I am not a fan of Reagan).
Pitt, however, rewrites history, as do other Muslim apologists. Most Arabic progress occurred in a brief period after the Greeks, but Islam suffocated it. After 600 AD (Mohammed) the Arabic/Muslim contribution to the advancement of civilization included some pretty advanced mathematics. Similarly, one might point out that the Nazi contribution to civilization was rocket science & meticulous bookkeeping.
Both mathematics and rocket science, were real contributions, but both were buried under a morass of uncivilized beliefs ─cultural filth. In some respects that was also true of early European developments, except the Europeans, especially the British, kept progressing. Then early Americans extended exponentially further, by implementing Individual Rights, politically. The Moors, who killed their way to Spain (a point Pitt conveniently evaded), collapsed backwards and never recovered ─because of Islamism. Later, Europeans re-invented the math and accepted the valid aspects of the Moorish math.
Pitt would accuse me of cherry picking the Quran, because he cherry picks history. If he does it, then so must his opponents! In fact, I read every verse of the first two Surahs of the Quran. Anyone who admits to reading past the filth of the second Surah is either dishonest, vicious or is a child under parental coercion. To rationalize an explicitly violent, racist, dictatorial, mysogynist, belief system, that demands the emulation of an equally vicious prophet and Neanderthalian god, is to be one of them. (That is not empty "vitriol", the religion is exactly as described.)
I will not discuss this further with an (ir)rationalist; not for lack of ability but because nothing can be gained with a person whose primary motivation for thinking is to justify his feelings rather than consider ideas.
Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.
Submit a comment on this article
Other reader comments on this item
|RnBram [141 words]||Richard Bramwell||May 2, 2011 18:06|
|↔ American Jihad? [205 words]||Doug Pitt||May 4, 2011 15:56|
|↔ you reall should read the Quran [204 words]||RnBram||May 4, 2011 17:09|
|↔ I read the Koran. I did not pick over it. [323 words]||Doug Pitt||May 4, 2011 21:33|
|↔ ⇒ Religion and rationalism: enemies of mankind [389 words]||RnBram||May 5, 2011 16:47|
|↔ Answer the question. [175 words]||Doug Pitt||May 5, 2011 20:40|
|↔ Darn, I had checked Email Me & and submitted without unchecking it [536 words]||RnBram||May 5, 2011 22:20|
|↔ As expected -- can't answer the question. [111 words]||Doug Pitt||May 6, 2011 21:16|
|↔ Bramwell is a Fascist Propagandist [280 words]||Doug Pitt||May 10, 2011 22:31|
Comment on this item