zeus header

PAPERBACK BOOKS

WHEN IDEOLOGY GOES WRONG 



ideology cover

 

When Ideology Goes Wrong discusses the darkest corners of human behaviour that lead to extreme violence from delusional killers controlled by a twisted fantasy in their own minds.

They need to satisfy some desperate urge in killing random victims. Then to the spree killers who come out of nowhere and strike when least expected with a hail of bullets in a public gathering, and on to the witnessing of the religious insanities of 9/11.

Discussing when ideology that goes wrong is the unwanted excess of the three main faiths and how other ideologies get overtaken by misguided warped logic that leads to extreme murder.

Of course history and politics play an essential role in that evaluation.

 

In Store Price: $29.95 
Online Price:  
$28.95

AMAZON

EBOOKS
Ebook version - $AUD9.00 upload.

IISBN: 978-1-876882-48-8


Format: Paperback
Number of pages: 350
Genre: Non Fiction

Cover: Clive Dalkins

© Cover DesignóZeus Publications 2019 

This book is a work of non-fiction.

The author asserts his moral rights. This disclaimer informs readers that the views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this text belong solely to the author.

  ISBN: 978-1-876882-48-8

Osama photo By Hamid Mir - http://www.canadafreepress.com/, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=15159070

 JIM JONES

By Nancy Wong - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=83015672

 

© Cover DesignóZeus Publications 2019

 



 


Author
- Anthony Frank
Publisher: Zeus Publications
Date Published:  2019
Language: English


HOME PAGE

      Read a sample:

 

Dedicated to:

  

All who suffer from the perpetual and seemingly inevitable

clash of cultures, the source of most human conflict.

  

WHEN IDEOLOGY GOES WRONG

 

DEFINING ATHEISM

  

Searching for a fan base for this ideology gone wrong might be a dilemma on my behalf and one that I must make clear to the intended reader. It is an Atheistic approach that sets out to debunk the monotheistic religions; otherwise those who oppose this approach will be short-changing morality. It is truly important to define the beliefs of Atheism: in its most simple form itís the rejection of any deity and the rejection of established religions on the basis of a lack of any evidence. There are those Atheists who donít have a political or scientific agenda or even some who donít probe into psychological needs for faith that someone preserves. There are Atheists who would love to believe in religion and live forever, but they canít believe in it. Not because they donít want to; itís because the evidence is just not there. Atheism has many forms of vested arguments that range from philosophical, social and historical approaches, not to mention the famous scientific stance in lacking any empirical evidence. Then the devastating arguments on how religion around the world has been a nasty divider, an identifier Ė not to mention the evil factor that can lead to killings in religionís name.

The most explicit types of Atheists are the ones who pursue scientific methodological naturalism. In other words, they take a firm stance on evolution and natural selection within the boundaries of philosophical scientific methods without the hint of any miracle narratives. The pursuit of moral principles and secular philosophy tends to spread rationalism; some proponents of this view take issue with the criticism of suggested guidelines, spiritual guidelines for the devout, or the fallible motives for adhering to spiritual scriptures. To carefully examine the religious motives, one has to fulfil various psychological and emotional wants for faith, scepticism that concludes to a certain Ďlogicí thatís faulty in human reason and negation of human liberty.

It has always been immoral or irrational to pursue religious doctrines that stand in conflict with limitation of human knowledge. A view that has rapidly fallen into disfavour with strenuous believers and reaching a consensus that leads to differing ideas regarding established religions can be sometimes a waste of time depending on the person you deal with. Atheism has always been a spread of free thought that aims to reason with believers who suffer a fundamental psychological weakness. Rationalism and freethinking can sometimes be refuted by academically gifted moderate believers; itís astounding how many intelligent conservatives who present positive values in society have reliance on some spiritual security or a reservation for a higher authority. Yet many question the literalness of religion and have an abysmal knowledge of scriptures, but they still have a reservation of a grand creator considering intelligent design. The moderate believers have no particular interest in going regularly to their places of worship or they have no interest in determining right from wrong in strict devotions; instead they develop a personal relationship with God. They only see what they want to see as truths and this attachment has self-preservation purposes, trimmed to their satisfaction.

The thought of death will always remain a demoralising aspect of life, fear of the unknown, and this is why religion will always keep thriving. A well-established quasi-belief, whether handed down by inheritance or a recent discovery in any revelation will always fill a void believing seeking some sort of afterlife conception. The basis for a self-preservation belief can be harmless; the search for the Ďsacredí suggests that spirituality leads to finding some purpose in life. The afterlife concept of exactly what has grown ever foggier and they hear about it much less frequently from their pastors or their Church. There always will be various spiritual paths in any organised doctrinal faiths or obtaining a spiritual outlook that is more personalised, but can be further objected to by Atheists. The counter entails, if a belief is based on self-preservation then oblivion imprecision begins to turn faulty, such as the believersí failure to acknowledge Godís incompatibility between certain traits with humanity and inability to avert the natural world from disasters, including devastating storms, cyclones, monsoons and earthquakes that result in human casualties.

Then there is the African misfortune, the scarcity of rainfall that has led to extreme famine and acute malnutrition throughout a high percentage of the continent. A believer will try to explain these disasters by saying itís Godís will, or God works in mysterious ways, in which their stance becomes more faulty. Then there is citing of the segregating borders around the globe, how our borders have identified humans under religion. The schismatic conflicts which in the most extreme cases can introduce mankind to justifiable genocide. This has always been plausible genocide. This has always been plausible, not for its challenge, but its certain traits that uphold the values of morality.

A lot of Atheists will emphasise the focus on religious confusion about where we are going as a society with all kinds of murky religious foment, not to mention the lack of any evidence, and why these moderate believers are blissfully unaware of its tangles. The moderate believers have always been dismissive against the atheistic counters and yet many believers sharpen their own faith against the peculiar abrasiveness of all fronts of the nonbelievers. As always the religious think the atheistic effort is wrong-minded from the start. To the faithfuls, any approach that begins by rejecting the miraculous and the supernatural has no hope of coming to terms with the true meaning of God. Then they elaborate that the apprehensive belief in an afterlife with reward and punishment is a vital necessity of reason and moral order. When segregating borders and schismatic conflicts are brought up, the believers seem to duff it as perverse curiosities, or even completely irrelevant, in which they display limited interest.

Schism within religious sects has been neglected and even unquestioned for centuries by believers; wide differences over how to see the disaffection amongst segregating communities throughout the world can also be divisive. Schism within religion has also been a powerful tool in identifying a person and his nationality, and in its extremity it can be a complete severance of a nation. The active exclusion with the problems of evil in religious schism needs to be addressed; after all, it has been proven to lead an individual with a unique but twisted belief in being the chosen one, just because of the way heís been brought up in his own certain traditional ways.

When it comes to marriages of different religious sects around the globe, there always will be some ethnic background that has a sense of caution and scepticism when it comes to intermarriages. It can be as simple as one particular interpretation of one faith that clashes with another tradition that will always cause some friction in any given society, but the more a society is Westernised or secularised the more rare these frictions become.

In the reversed effect, theological schism can find a nostalgic path even for contrasting nationalities with different languages, but if they share the same historical ancestral deity, then it turns the brotherhood unity. A believer will ignore the divisions of faith that have labelled humans, but if these roads are not taken in the discussion or in a debate, and if the believer insists on believing in the good deeds of his own faith, then what is the righteous path? Every new theory seems to wear away some long-cherished relic in the battle between faith and knowledge. A believer usually accepts only a God who approaches them, or a God that can be approached within the context of their own culture, more or less the availability of a belief within the established religion category. If the believer observes the outer forms and ceremonies of religion without following its true spirit, then this seeming belief is most vulnerable to heavy criticism and the believer who can live with some doubt is more likely to keep some faith Ė an occasionally fallible religion. A religious conversation is essential for any audience; it promotes a certain outstanding component for us to decide all over again our identity as a civilisation and religion belongs in that discussion.

Of course, Genesis will always provide a unique common ground for Christians, Jews and Muslims, although Genesis is a lot easier to handle in a Church, Mosque or a Synagogue than the real thing. Another important aspect the believer must consider is that other world views of religious ideas make the claims as they do and to defend your views in the marketplace of religious ideas you have to be able to give reasons why you believe in your own sect. Believing in something just because of an accident of birth or Ďmy faith is correctí, isnít the satisfactory answer. In studying religious history, it always seem to be historical fragments of actual history, but history so shaped and transformed by faith it requires caution in the reader who seeks firm facts. In most cases a believer will have a current distrust of science and disillusionment with rationalism; then there is the hidden agenda of fear of the unknown, which generates theories of altruism in religion, a psychological clutch for faith.

To analyse the kaleidoscope of fear regarding faith, belief would take enormous volumes and every believer is different, establishing their own interpretation of interpreting religion. For Atheists, the unfilled gaps in a religious conversation will always receive enigmatic answers from any believer. Such as the argument that morality must be derived from God and cannot exist without a wise creator, or denying the existence of God leads to no moral relativism, leaving one with no moral or ethical foundation.

There are three fundamental obstacles that deter rationalism with that assumption. The first includes the believerís dismal conceptual capacity to grasp the issues that disfavour humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values that permits individuals to resolve harsh problems without resorting to God. The second demonstrates misguided teachings in places of worship: if the good deeds of a person outweigh the bad, then the soul is worthy of heaven; another example that supports both religious and psychological theories, for both rely on demonstrating that the phenomenon is strictly spiritual.

The last obstacle for an Atheist is the believersí questionable sincerity in a belief that by behaving ethically only because a divine mandate is watching, thatís not true ethical behaviour, but merely blind obedience.

When discussing secular philosophy, the believers seem to fall short on many fronts: inconsistent revelations including scepticism regarding supernatural claims citing a lack of empirical evidence and arguments that range from philosophical, social and historical.

To begin with the historical outlook, Atheistsí view gods as only the deified rulers, conquerors of the past and their cults and religions were in essence the continuation of vanished kingdoms and early political structures. Crusades obviously ceased a long time ago, but the benign institutions and vanished kingdoms were the long potent legacies that have thrived into places of worship in modern day and their cosmic messages have remained the same, only without the swords and horses. Their following has remained, but no way near as fanatical, and their following has endured through two millennia. So still we can understand the nourishing factors for Middle-Ages rituals and traditions on how they survived or endured through centuries. What began as ancient turf battles with a divine intent blurred in with human ambition struggling with hope in the near and distant future for generations.

The ongoing battle for faith is that they will keep their righteous deeds despite an ever-changing modern world. There is electric advancement, space advancement and medical advancements, these are miracles we herald as proof and science by the day will keep pilling the evidence. So you can say that science might be winning the battle on the proof aspect and that might mean that God has become obsolete for the modern world. To attempt a conversation with a cult of reason would take enormous measures; after all, historical religion has remained a permanent legacy and to peel back layers of the mythical to find out actual historical facts, it will all conclude that our knowledge of history and God is limited to conjecture. The most desirable approach in uncovering the holy texts is to treat them as a human rather than a divine piece of work and this is subjected to investigation of their date, authorship, composition and settings. The aim is based upon historical accuracy of scriptures, confronting them with an entire range of linguistics, archaeology, anthropology and comparative religions. Archaeological diggings continue to turn up evidence that religious texts are often surprisingly accurate in historical particulars, more so than earlier generations of scholars suspected (including the discoveries of horned altars in several Israelite sites, which figure in several Biblical accounts). Although itís still hard to ignore so many verses of faith, so laden with unprovable events and legends. The relatively few miracles, most accredited to individuals to whom God promises salvation, are carried out by a prophet, patriarchs and a messiah. If manís understanding is wanted, or if someone does get compelled by the narratives of any religion, then the breadth, sophistication and diversity of all this historical investigation is impressive, but it begs a question: has it made faith more credible or less in the 21st century? Whether the answer is Ďmoreí, then religion will always be at the crossroads of trying to preserve their ancient traditions in a rapidly changing modern world. If the answer is Ďlessí, then faith is open for criticism at all fronts.

What matters in history is only the first Abrahamic teachings of faith that began in the BC centuries and the 1st century in ancient Judah during which the Hebrew Torah was composed, shortly after the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth were formed and then 700 years later Islam was formed by Prophet Mohammed in the 7th century. Again, Islam arrived a bit later on the scene and the teachings of the Quran refer to Israelite figures like Moses, David and Jesus. The hypothesis isnít so much the focus on authenticity of the original scriptures; instead itís critical how to interpret the oral renderings that were based on specific facts as witnessed by apostles, prophets and patriarchs. What will emerge actually from the sacred narratives of all three religions is pretty much the same figures, histories and places in each, promising the same prophecies, although they often present slightly different roles and slightly different perspectives and meanings in present day. If the preachers of the three faiths in present day cannot obtain absolute certainty in mono-faith history, then history is relegated to trivial cases and what this means in modern-day diversity of views of scriptures is not a diversity of faith; one can almost take oneís pick.

Itís always been a painstaking and even ongoing challenge to retrieve the blackboard that distinguishes what might sound like a fairytale and allegorical arguments rather than actual detailed realities in history; this approach has always been an uphill battle and will continue.

A closer historical analysis of the original Old Testament writers, the rabbinical fathers of the Torah and the Hadiths of the Quran, reveals that many historians are starting to subscribe to the belief that all founders are inauthentic. This has affected Islam and Christianity the most; if genuine contradictions take form, then their worshippers may be more radically misguided than first thought. Focusing on the authenticity, it isnít so much the contradictions in differing interpretations Ė after all, many Christians envision the interpretation or lessons of the historical Jesus not so much as a theological construct, but as a miraculous moralist who was painfully aware of the misery of mankind: the injustices of the world and his superficial ability to cure the poor, sick and handicapped. This has similarities in the Islamic world: no single image of Mohammed will do, only a prophet and the only messenger of God, who called for brotherhood, love and unity to Muslims with a united peace.

Many reject the idea that these wandering sages were oriented towards the end-of-the-world questions or even apocalyptic warnings, but they did expect a radical transformation of the world and this would involve the coming of a heavenly figure. There is no basis on which most believers can counter these authoritative-sounding claims; after all, these believers, depending which side of the fence they are on, or how they have been brought up, both Christians and Muslims both see themselves as apocalyptic reformers, purifiers of Judaism and builders of a new world order. Then the side that exposes their unauthenticity is more their undoing for bringing on Armageddon that led to their horrific deaths on a cross or being poisoned. If this side of history exists, then their triumphs and travails would suffer an immense depletion regarding the embellished gloss for the miraculous. This strategy for the believers is offensive; they are only concerned about preserving their faith very staunchly. Then again, it can be valuable for those historians who are searching for more knowledge that has become interesting now for its oddity. Itís always been repellent for the believers, because it can be highly offensive if alternative preaching was to target their inspirational godly figures as misguided fanatics who were proclaiming an imminent kingdom of heavenly prophecies and died to bring it about. Simultaneously, the believers will turn the emphasis back on their theocratic figures as great guardians against an evil that is real and a formidable supernatural force of invisible kingdoms battling above our heads and below our feet.

Although history still reveals that these believers of Godís will were inert in preventing their own mortality, then ordinary humanistic trends begin to form for these ancient preachers. Then it is worthy for the recognition to do more investigation into their lives and personalities. To probe into their paternity or infancy is another forbidden path that can cause more friction and to a fundamentalist itís a forbidden path, which can put more dents in their received verities. Itís all designed to question the whole fabric of revealed religion and more to raise awareness than just blindly accept their institutional successorsí judgements that other texts and preachers tell completely different tale with other holy texts.

Still, it feels that questioning faith and scientific discoveries will always be a mismatch for the miraculous and spirituality. A secular understanding is always a mismatch for the miraculous, but not so in the sense of how an atheist can contend with the texts that can breed doubt of the literal truth or why the spiritual ideas were intolerable to modern man. The winning of souls has been with redemption and eternal life after death that no secularists can contend with and a normal human capacity for storytelling will always be compelled by the chronicles of faith and conclude that the narratives bear enough relation for that eternity to exist. As much as an Atheist can question just how true are the Torah, Bible or Quran of the faithsí literal texts, then the battle with the religious exegetes will continue and these faithfuls will always promote inerrancy; if inerrancy is the dominant stance amongst the devoted believers then certain traces will be in demand, traces that cry out for recognition and liberation from the firm grip of those whose faith overpowers their rational judgements. The empirical evidence is vital in the investigation, in which itís impossible even for a historian to attempt to prove certain tales are a fairytale without any ancient viable documents. Whether itís true or not without any viable evidence at hand, if that is the case a faith commitment comes into play. Whatís left over after historical study has proceeded as far as it can go, then you say a belief builds on the direction the evidence is already pointing and if that ends with a fairytale then so be it. On the other hand, it is worth mentioning that a traditionalist cannot claim a dominant faithful view which can also apply in the Western world where the existence of God is still universally accepted and itís further important to assert that the divine essence could not be intuitively or rationally apprehended by human intellect.

Just how can you interpret the actual evidence? Even that hasnít been so diverse as previously acknowledged Ė how you have been brought up or whatever makes more sense. The notion of history, evidence and recording it was of course very different in the 1st century. Like all ancient writers, the rabbinical fathers, caliphs or Old Testament gospel writers did not obviously set out to produce viable credible evidence that meets modern standards and precision, because obviously the technology wasnít there, not even in the 18th century let alone the 1st century. This is the most widespread striking probe in the investigation that can further scrutinise the delusional attachment to faith and present even grimmer propositions for any faithful traditionalist. The majority of religious followers will always alter any vigorous religious investigations with an obtuse respect for their texts. Their original texts cannot be wrong in anything, because it was inspired, word for word, by an infallible deity. If this type of ingrained belief is the main theme for the majority of believers, then a historical investigation is necessary, especially in the well-developed secular nations that seem increasingly faithless and if little can be known of the most basic elements of these charismatic religious figuresí lives, let alone the miracles, then what is any religious belief based on? The teachings of the texts? Or the actual miracles?

The miracles are the alluring attractions in any belief; they were constructed as the earliest building blocks of a childís religious training and still remain as aids of surety to the followers. After the miracles have been well inured, then the teachings emerge Ė not the least being moral teachings Ė but more so the teachings that relate to the supernatural ideas and are further developed with the assumption that Godís logic was impeccable. It might seem as very authoritarian to have an interpretation like that; however, the interpretation that needs to be paid more attention to and followed very carefully is when the believer embraces the dark side of faith. When any devout utterly discards the moral flaws of his own faith, nor is he interested in any verses, nor does he want to understand any verses of peace, he turns to God as the only answer who created us, supervised the whole establishment, supervises our diets, keeps in touch with political affairs and knows what he ĎDEMANDS FOR USí.

It might seem like very simpleminded belief, but this is the path on the road to radicalism and this is the type of language that is the hallmark of a demented fanatic. Extremism can present in many different forms and luckily itís in the very minor category. Although itís worth mentioning the above interpretation is what led to the religious insanities on 9/11. Looking closely at the 9/11 case, one must first acknowledge that these were not simple crimes of mass murder or violence out of extreme animosity towards another country; rather they were extreme acts that completely violated all the boundaries between right and wrong that we have established as a society. It is still beyond comprehension and unimaginable, just how a belief could be so supreme that it made all the hijackers put away their own morality, in which they were convinced that by killing for their own God they would be fast-tracked to a special martyrsí heaven. These were the type of motives that were very difficult to understand; not only did Ďparadiseí inspire them, but gave them the immense courage to do it with a utopian reward waiting. What could really drive the hijackers to execute such a cold-blooded attack on civilians and what could ever justify it? The answer is not with Islam, but a practising sect of a tiny minority of radical Muslims with a warped interpretation and they see any act of murder is justified as long as the will of Godís name is invoked. But the realism of this horrific act also suggests a deep connection to a world of fantasy.

Trying to unveil these severely unbalanced motives or examining these darkest desires, one might conclude if someone is overtaken by a warped logic, or even overtaken by utter madness with a cosmic consent, then it could reveal a very low IQ and even a mild case of mental retardation with psychotic implications. From a neuro perspective it could be a valid prognosis; there are signs to profile their psychology, in which many psychiatrists are still divided over delusional state. To unravel the mysteries of the brain where extremism is present, the majority of psychiatrists believe the temporal lobe may be the source of the problem within a fanatic and if you have a severely dysfunctional temporal lobe, then a critical weakness is exposed: the type of weakness that leads to auditory hallucinations in which these extremists create delusions and visions in their own mind. But that analysis didnít fully fit with the 9/11 hijackers. Other psychiatrists sided with that theory, but noted the issue was a lot more complicated than a case of schizophrenia. After all, the 9/11 hijackers were educated men who spoke three or four languages and it wasnít the work of one deranged hijacker. The schizophrenia did work up along slow, gradual gradients to a greater complexity, then their belief which started as a refuge from the real world was overdeveloped with a dangerous turn for the jihad philosophy. Both evaluations proved to be correct for another minority of psychiatrists, who further elaborated that if any believer regardless of the academic background adopted the jihad philosophy as the highest ideal, then that believer will always be discouraged by independent thought without the recognition for reasoning, and the vulnerability becomes solidly induced; itís at that critical point where fantasy bypasses reality completely.  

This is another stark reminder that the madman lurks in the religious smokescreen and that madmen will always find justification in their vile deeds. This isnít just a problem with Islam; this form of extremism is present with Jewish radicals established throughout Israel that have ranged active promotions to the removal and displacement of Arabs by force. Some of these extreme settlers believe they will awake and bring on the arrival of the Messiah by these events. This extremism was also present in the ex-Yugoslav tragedy, where Christian factions embraced nationalism to commit the most heinous war crimes. The premise for extreme fanaticism is the ideology to battle and save their country and righteous path of their faith, but this ideology will always cause anger, divisions and fear.

Searching for the answers in the mindset of a fundamentalist, it would be safest simply to walk away from questions so booby trapped with precarious imponderables, but Atheists as well as neuro-scientists canít help themselves and I have dedicated exploring these investigations as the main theme of my examination. Even this topic will cause counter-debates by literal-minded believers who will extricate their faith from extremism and just turn to the valuable parables of their own religion. In other words, it could mean that God wrote our scriptures and itís the same with these mild believers that will never challenge extremism or faith in general. Extremism can be the alarm clock within religion; to examine it and fail to recognise the devastating burden on civilisation it can have, or to have inability to see it, then frustratingly it will always clash with reasoning and limit rational discourse to our general and appropriate civilisation.

The social aspect is the last category that secular philosophy of Atheists target and that involves the hierarchy of religious clerics that ranges from the Christian pastors to the priesthood, the Islamic Imams to the Muftis or the Ayatollahs and to the Jewish rabbis. Any devotional creeds that relate to the clergy of spiritual leadership has always been perceived as a positive path for any applicants considering it, although the positive path can be rigid in its various conventions. For example, it can have a strict celibacy rule, which can suggest the priesthood isnít a job for ordinary people, despite its extraordinary requirements that applicants be men who are prepared to forego sex and marriage. In the Islamic world, for the Imams that excel to the Muftis, the active preachment exists on Friday prayers and Ramadan, in which the Imams perform the constant recitation of the Quran, as well as fasting with special prayers. Many also adhere to the confrontational view of secularism, which ascribe to their traditional practices to Sharia that sometimes overlooks customs and cultures. In Judaism, traditionally the rabbis have never been a intermediary between God and humans; this idea was traditionally considered outside the bounds of Jewish theology and unlike other spiritual leaders in many other faiths, they are not considered to be imbued with spiritual powers or abilities. In an ironic twist, the secular system in most states requires that a Jewish wedding be performed by an ordained rabbi in order to be legally recognised, even though there is no such requirement. That flexibility isnít so flexible with the orthodox Jewry, who require the successful completion of rigorous programs encompassing Jewry Law and responsibility for inn-keeping with long-standing traditions; those entrants require orthodox Yeshiva graduation with a strong background knowledge of Jewish Law, to the classical liturgy areas, and to the Hebrew, Aramaic and Yiddish languages.

As in all of these cases, despite all of these bizarre requirements for religious leadership to undergo, many think of them as being outside of society and their traditions are becoming more irrelevant to the modern world. Their cultures can never be universal, but more so a microcosm and that is due to the fact that the world has a surplus of religions and a vast variety of traditions that make all religious traditions unique in their own right. There are also gnawing common-sense misgivings about the teachings of religious leaders: for one, they wouldnít hesitate to shed evolution and science from any religious gatherings and more importantly these religions display disturbing contradictions in their own moral teachings. Not all are exactly moralistic literalists; many can adopt the eye-for-an-eye concept and bizarre bigotry that lead to racial discrimination. Itís even more surprising that not all of these religious leaders are tucked away in quiet leafy suburbs; most of these religious demagogues can be the well-publicised spiritual leaders of their own nation.

The late Jerry Falwell was a Christian evangelical fundamentalist Baptist pastor, as well as a televangelist and so-called conservative commentator from the United States. After the 9/11 attacks, Falwell came under heavy criticism when he stated that the attacks were Ďprobably deservedí. He pointed the blame on the pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays and lesbians who were actively trying to make alternative lifestyles for Americans. This highly offensive stupidity should have been enough to diminish his credibility and label him as a national disgrace. Then another clumsy remark followed when he stated the Islamic religion itself is Satanic, although it was a remark that struck a chord with many evangelicals and was agreeable to the American public after 9/11. Whatever he said followed always with an apology and for most of the public who admired him that was enough for his following to resume. On the other hand he was a religious entrepreneur and an active mobiliser in the evangelical movement, in which he founded the Christian Academy as well as establishing the Liberty University. In politics he had a fierce determination to bring God and religion into the seat of power in the United States. There was no doubt Falwell was an successful religious leader, but absurdity in his rhetoric was always present throughout his career, the stand-out being when he preached constantly on how he and his followers would be Ďrapturedí into heaven and the people he disliked would burn in hell. It was that type of rhetoric that left Falwellís legacy strongly mixed, and often a source of heated controversy.

A well-known American-Israeli rabbi known as Rabbi Meir Kahane became a political figure in Israel for his ultra-nationalist views on Jewish causes. In politics he believed the Israel secular entity had to be destroyed, that democracy and Judaism are not the same thing. He promoted a violent Jewish defence, meaning the forcible deportation and expulsion of all Arabs from the Holy Land. With that move Kahane preached to his followers Ďwhat will bring our redemption with God is warí. His racist views were so extreme that his party was outlawed and in 1994 the Kahane Party was officially declared a terrorist organisation. After being deposed from politics it was a fatal downfall; the racial rhetoric clashed with harsh reality and once he became isolated with minimal force, he was gunned down in Brooklyn by an Arab extremist in 1990. In summary, it was a career that didnít go further than hate speeches, but the Kahane ideology is still respected by radical Jews and every year in November in Israel, people from the extreme right meet at his graveside to commemorate his legacy.

In Britain, an Egyptian-born Sunni activist known as Sheikh Abu Hamza, came into notoriety for his preaching of a violent and political interpretation of Islam, also known as militant Islamism or Jihadism. In his early career he preached the polemics against Jewish money propaganda, in which he believed the Jews ruled the world financially and politically. He kept nourishing the residual of anti-Semitism in his local Mosque and that lasted for ten years. Then after a while he moved on to the killing of Kafirs, or infidels Ė in other words, the killing of non-Muslims who rejected Allah. Then after 9/11, he moved on to terrorism with a passion for Bin Laden and a great respect for him. His tendency of stirring up racial hatred, inciting violence and promoting terrorism made him a hate figure in the British tabloids, as well as a serious nuisance to the UK government. He has been arrested and convicted under UK anti-terrorist laws.

There are many of his infamous quotations, the most noticeable ones when he claimed that the space shuttle Columbia disaster was a sign from God. These missions would increase the number of satellites for military purposes against the Muslim world and it would also increase the slavery governance for American purposes. It was also a punishment from God and itís also a trinity of evil, because the astronauts who died were Americans, an Israeli and a Hindu, a trinity of evil against Muslims. These quotations would suggest Abu Hamza is a complete joke and his holy war visions as being disconnected from mainstream reality, making him as a person that nobody would take seriously not even for a minute. But criticism over his intelligence can be irrelevant. What is relevant and even dangerous is that Abu Hamza has the potential to create an atmosphere, in which young Muslims in his local Mosque can fall under the influence of Hamza and the factors included under that influence are that killing can be regarded as a legitimate course, a moral and religious duty in pursuit of personal justice for Allah and Muslims. This type of influence led to the London 7/7 attacks, although there is a question mark on the sincerity of his beliefs for the Islamic cause, because he lives in the British society that he rejects, yet he takes advantages of all freedoms and luxuries that British society has to offer.

For Atheists the last category of belief is the agnostic belief. Agnosticism is the absence of religious motivation of any sort. The agnostic principle maybe expressed with the questions of the existence or non-existence of a deity or deities being the ultimate reality of the unknowable and they do not aim at constructing a complete philosophy of the unknowable. Strong agnosticism is reasoning that limits and contradicts itself in claiming the power of reason to know scientific truth, but not religious or philosophical truth, and that leads many of them to look the Universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for them. This may be the most impartial stance on religion and there are no motives for their beliefs, but more so the fruitless seeking and the unsatisfactory answers that religion has to offer, in which they believe there isnít a conclusive argument that one can prove that there is a God.

Agnosticism is still in the implicit category and when something is weak in a belief, then there is a reservation for a belief in a higher authority. For example, Agnostics can turn to God if there is a health crisis. They lack religious motivation and the disinterest in science enquiries can still make them believe that humanity should have no fear of the supernatural, but itís not enough to win arguments with the theocrats and they do fall short with the line of reasoning. Most theistic thinkers repudiate the validity; to them some theory is always better than no theory and most of these are in the bracket of the Abrahamic religions. These critics affirm the possibility of knowledge with a sense of arrogance, even metaphysical realities, such as God and the soul, because human intelligence, they believe, has a non-material spiritual element. They also affirm Ďnot being able to see or hold some specific things does not necessarily negate Godís existenceí as in the case of gravity, entropy or reason and thought. That particular example might seem plausible and even inspirational for anybody lacking in religious persuasion, but it can be a serious distraction with a pseudo-science element and the missing pieces of science can be completely replaced by unsatisfactory answers with metaphysical realms. This unwanted turn can be a tremendous cop-out: if scientific voids are present then the religious will fill it out with their own mythical theories and it doesnít matter how superstitious those theories might seem, or how marginal the evidence is. As long as there is some half-baked theory, it will be better than no theories.

Some of the outstanding question marks on religion will always be a liability for those preaching to win souls. That can attract anybodyís philosophy, it can even turn around weak Agnostics, and summing up Agnosticism, itís clear the belief is a combination of lacking religious inspiration and opposed to following attitudes, therefore one will withhold judgements and evidence until/if any is available with some proper sense. The last misconception about Agnosticism, whether itís weak or strong, shouldnít be viewed as an inappropriate interest. To the examination, many might presume it as an atheistic approach, but Atheism still needs certainty in its persuasion and it would be a defective move on my behalf, as well as sending the wrong message. Putting extremism aside, I want to mostly examine the Abrahamic faiths and focus on the parts of the world where these faiths are still a powerful political force with their demented followers who share a deep disaffection with modern secular society. Of course, politics will be important in the evaluation, as well as psychological aspects, and finally to some science enquiries, because I strongly believe there is a profound contradiction between religious belief and science. All of the above is to arouse, or give rise to more understanding of the huge challenges we face to our civilised values.

 

 

HOME PAGE 

   
                                                   All Prices in Australian Dollars                                                                                CURRENCY CONVERTER                    

                                 (c)2019 Zeus Publications           All rights reserved.