The Antichristian Phenomenon

The most important reason for my atheism is the absence of both evidence and arguments (both sound and valid) for the existence of God. This can be extended for for my rejection of essential passages in the Bible which endeavour to establish the incidence of certain events in world history. These span the creation myth from the book of Genesis to Jesus’ miracles in the Gospel books. But parallel to the empirical criticism of such truth claims, there are also reasons why I reject Christianity as a collection of philosophical doctrines. Never minding whether the truth claims in the Bible actually stack up, I want to criticize some of the more abstract ideas tied into this religion. In this short essay, I want to criticise Christian ethics – or rather lack thereof, which I will explain in full.

It is a common argument by theists that without a god, there are no morals and everything is permitted. In the absence of a god who sets a standard of wrong and right, man is argued to be clueless as to whether, for example, murder is a good thing or not. I will not go very deep into alternative approaches of morality, but simply analyse the abovementioned position and draw conclusions from it. But first I should establish the specific ethical theory that is immanent in Christianity (but which is also true for Islam and Judaism). In these montheistic religions, the god is the giver of the moral law. Because God is said to be benevolent, all-knowing and all-wise, he is the giver of moral laws which are absolute and eternal. This idea of ethics is commonly referred to as Divine Command Theory (DCT). I will focus on two main problems with DCT.

The first one is in the form of a dilemma, originally found in Plato’s dialogues, posed by a philosopher called Euthyphro. It can be adapted to fit a core problem of DCT as found in philosophical theism in the following way:

“Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?”

This is Euthypro’s Dilemma^[I] . The question is fundamental and must be answered, but both answers pose serious problems for DCT. I will first discuss the second part of the dilemma.

If what is moral is so because it is commanded by God, then that means that anything that God commands is moral by definition. Whatever God commands to be moral is arbitrary, thereby reducing God’s benevolence to meaning absolutely nothing. Gottfried Leibniz wrote^[II] “So in saying that things are not good by any rule of goodness, but sheerly by the will of God, it seems to me that one destroys, without realizing it, all the love of God and all his glory. For why praise him for what he has done if he would be equally praiseworthy in doing exactly the contrary?” And that sums the problem up quite nicely – if we choose to answer the problem by saying whatever God commands is moral, we forfeit any rational consideration of morals and allow ourselves to be subjected to the whim of God. If God were to command that the rape of altar boys is an moral imperative, those who accept DCT would have to accept that in that scenario that action is indeed moral, and have to try their very best to make sure as many altar boys are raped as possible. The consequences of accepting DCT are clear: it replaces any moral predispositions one has by the perceived commands of God, without allowing the intellect to evaluate them. I reject this as I perceive it as nothing less than moral self-enslavement.

So what if we were to accept that what is good is commanded by God because it is good? Then we are left with the question: well what is God good for? In this possible response to the dilemma God is the messenger who tells us what is good in itself. However: morality itself is independent of God, as without God the moral laws that God otherwise would communicate to us in his commands would still exist and be in effect. However, there is still a problem with this approach, and the problem is epistemic in nature. The same problem arises for the other approach, but it is of less importance there because of other objections. Here, however, we must deal with how we can know what God commands. A theist might point to scriptures and claim we can find what God commands in there, but in practice this is a futile attempt. Thousands of years of interpreting scriptures has lead to various religious denominations that have decided upon mutually exclusive moral laws based on what is according to them the correct canonical collection.  Furthermore, there are moral problems in the modern world for which no guidance can be found in these scriptures, revealing a moral vacuity.

What is interesting about Christianity is that ethics based on DCT is mostly prevalent in the Old Testament. The New Testament, however, seems to also place importance on a different meta-ethical system which focuses on having certain virtues rather than following certain rules – virtue ethics. This is explicitly expressed in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount^[III]. Some virtues that are blessed by Jesus are “poorness in spirit” (“humility”), “meekness”, “righteousness”, “mercy” and  “purity of heart”. Jesus also blesses those who are persecuted, those who are peacemakers and those who mourn. In other passages, Jesus emphasizes on virtues like “love” and “service”. In virtue ethics the emphasis is on the person, who is good if he/she embodies these virtues, rather than the actions of the person. This could partly explain the reluctance of Christian denominations to require abiding the full Mosaic Law, and why these denominations place emphasis on “The Ten Commandments”, rather than all 613 of them^[IV]. Virtue ethics has its own problems, like internal consistency (should one embody benevolence and tell a white lie, or embody truthfulness and tell a hurtful truth?)  and a lack of basis and therefore external inconsistency, a foremost example of which is voiced by Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche rejected various Christian values (virtues can be understood as are moral values) such as pity and faith, calling these decadent values as they are antagonistic to Nietzsche’s Will to Power and the higher sort of man^[V]. There is no basis for deciding which set of values/virtues are better than another.

Any system of ethics which does not rely on rational analysis of its precepts, but rather on obedience and authority, is inherently prone to abuse, and should therefore be rejected. We are all moral people, and I am saddened when I see people defend the tyrannical actions of the Old Testament god. I not only believe that I am more moral than that god, I also believe that people who are defending this god are more moral than it. It is exactly as Steven Weinberg said^[VI]:

“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion. “

Footnotes

1. Sometimes also called Euthypro’s Problem [↩]
2. Discourse on Metaphysics (1686) [↩]
3. Matthew 5:3-12 [↩]
4. The 613 Mitzvot [↩]
5. The Antichrist (1888) [↩]
6. Conference on Cosmic Design, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C. in April 1999 [↩]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oR5GwAEYCE

That’s all folks.

Swedish political right extremist party Sverigedemokraterna (Sweden Democrats) have managed to give rise to more controversy more than gaining power among the voters. Their leader, Jimmie Åkesson, published a very controversial debate article yesterday in the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet (The Evening Paper) where he makes various claims about Muslims being the new threat to the Swedish welfare system.

You can read the article on this site both as a Swedish extract and with a Google translation.

It is clear that Åkesson use sweeping statements and hyperboles, such as claiming that Europe will have the highest rape statistics in the world, and that Muslim men will be overrepresented. This is nothing new and basically just fear-mongering, the truth remains that most rapes today are done by white middle-class men no one would expect to be rapists, and neither do they, hence the as usual complete denial. A lot of men who are white and belong to the middle-class are never convicted simply because the judges believed them more, only for the pure reasons that they were white middle-class men. We do not perceive them of being capable of raping, even when there is overwhelming evidence presented. The reason why is simply of what Åkesson just expressed; we rather believe in the dark ambusher coming from an Arab country, spying on lone women at night hiding in a bush near a parkway, just ready to attack.

I live in a pretty Muslim-dense part of my town, and there is a local store that sell Halal meat. I can’t really say it bothered me more than I think it is unethical to drain an animal of blood while it is still alive, as I consider it a form of animal cruelty. Neither have I never felt unsafe when walking alone at night in my area. A lot of children’s families live here, the worst thing I usually experience are teenagers who drive around with their vespas in the middle of the night. I have also yet to meet a person who was clearly mean to me. All of the people I’ve spoken to are nice, such as the guy who sits at the counter in the previously mentioned store that sell Halal meat.

Instead of actually explaining how he would like to proceed to solve the issues with identitiy crisis among second- and third generation immigrants, Åkesson retorts to fear-mongering tactics. What’s worse is the huge support SD have started to gain among the general population, so obviously it is working. I wish people were less blind and could actually see that Åkesson offers NOTHING to solve the problem, he just makes statement after statement of what is wrong. That is not a solution, just empty promises. So what is Åkesson going to do once he get to power? Kick out all immigrants from Sweden? That is obviously not going to work, no matter how you look at it. One reason is that the Swedish birthrate is too low.

I should add that sually any identity to the grandparents’ country is lost at the third generation as they become completely immersed within their “host” country, so I am not sure what kind of statistics Åkesson took part of, but it’s very contradictory to what I’ve learnt as an anthropology student. So I don’t see why Åkesson is quite worried. Yes, angsty teenagers in the surburbs are a problem, but they aren’t angsty because they are Muslims, they are angsty because the politicians do nothing to improve their situation and ultimately the become marginalized from society! One would expect our politicians to learn that it doesn’t work to dump immigrants on one dense place. Philipe Burgois’ book In Search of Respect is a perfect example of what will happen in Sweden in the future if we don’t try to spend money to improve the situation.

Lastly, there are a lot of claims made about what is Swedish, but Åkesson nor anyone from SD never offer any form of explanation of what they mean what being Swedish is. Am I Swedish for having a Swedish name and a Swedish personal number and for considering myself part Swedish? Or am I too, an evil immigrant here to poison the country and the so called Swedish culture because of my Korean heritage? I do not deny my Korean heritage and I consider myself just as much Korean as I consider myself Swedish. I just so happened to have a Swedish name that people mention me as and to speak Swedish fluently. It should be said that my Korean name is actually a part of my whole name, only the surname is left out for reasons I don’t know, but I think it was inconvenient for my parents to name me Fridh Kim or any variant of it, since they were married and it would be troublesome legally I suppose.

If there is anything that worries me right now when it comes to Swedish politics it’s if SD would get into the parliament. I am very worried over what will happen with the current Swedish democracy and freedom of speech. I do not deny Åkesson’s right to voice his opinions, but I do deny him the right to get into the Swedish parliament and I will actively do so by refusing to vote for him and his party. Any person who only argues for the right for his own freedom of speech and his own social rights only fool himself if he claims to support a democratic society where everybody is equal.

I do agree with Åkesson that our current immigration is a huge issue and that we have yet to learn how to manage to deal with all the angsty teenagers living in the suburbs. Clearly what our politicans are currently doing isn’t working, but this also includes Åkesson and his SD! I admit that one of the reasons why I want to become a scientist within the anthropological field is so I can go out in the field and actually gather FACTS so maybe they’ll start doing something USEFUL and TANGIBLE. I do want to be able to influence our politicians on a greater scale than what I am currently able of just being a normal citizen with an opinion.

It should also be noted that SD got strong Christian roots (hahahahahahaha!), as if I’d ever cast my vote for such a retarded party that make claims of how dangerous Islam is and that the Koran is so dogmatic and then come running making such weak claims that “but at least we got the NT who make claims about turning the other cheek!”. Yeah, right, like that’s exactly what you are doing Åkesson? Like referring to the NT ever stopped Christianity from still oppressing our society and still does here in the West. Cherrypicking, cherrypicking. Of course, Åkesson wouldn’t define his homophobia as much as oppressing, just that the Bible says so and therefore it is right. Now, maybe Åkesson should start looking at himself first and the claims he and his party make regarding domatism, then maybe they got the right to critize Islam properly.

Such fucking idiocy. I wish people could actually see that Åkesson is just a big fucking hypocrite and if I could, I would smother him where he stands with my soceress’ fire ball. In fact, I wish we could tear down our whole current political system and abdicate all our active politicians. They are very good at talking and avoiding questions, very bad at actually making the changes they always claim they are aiming for.

Yep, it’s that time of the year again where I approve all the journals waiting for many long months and present you with some that I found interesting.

• LeaTelamon continues her Dissection of Death Metal. More innards!
• Doomface has a rant about Giftmas and how the whole thing becomes so annoying to those poor and uncreative of us.
• Self-MadeWolf takes us on a tour of the genres in Gothic music. Interesting to see what exactly the fine distinctions are. They all sound similar to me :-/
• KhaosWolf666 brings us a very nice view on Islam from an Iran-born activist.
• And finally VampyreAngel discovers some interesting nuggets of info on Wikipedia on a bored day.

So that’s all for now. If you want to be included in the next version of the Journal Roundup, simply write an interesting Last.fm journal and submit it to the ACP group. Once I go through and approve them, I will select those which have more than 2 minutes of thought put into them for the next roundup.

I’m thinking of making this feature a more regular thing, like a carnival for the last.fm people. Of course this depends on having a decent amount of journals posted to choose from. What do you think?

Since Db0 was so kind to remind me of this in his post, it was hard for me not to reply to that, especially after learning about the Seed Theory originally created by Carol Delaney and her colleague whose name escapes me right now. There is actually a reason why females are considered inferior in the Abrahamic religions. To understand this, we must first of all understand what was before Christianity and Judaism. That’s right, many pagan religions where some were cheerishing the fertility of women, since good fertility means a good harvest. Fertility of course, is the very central theme in many agricultures, and why shouldn’t they, when it’s the very thing they rely upon to survive? Looking at this further, we can also see a notion where every god of fertility in pagan religions is depicted as woman. Coincidence? I think not. Thus, fertility as a whole is more strongly connected to the female gender rather than the male one, and in addition connected to the earth since the earth can be fertile. Women then, stand for the earthly. Is there any question too why it is the female who gives birth to the world in most mythology sagas? As a quick example, we don’t need to go further than Gaia, which is probably the most well-known of all world birthgivers.

However, when the Abrahamic religions came into the picture and turned the world upside down with its monotheism, there was suddenly no room for a fertility godess. As a matter of fact, god is so divine that it is the very opposite of what is earthly. Men, who never were considered fertile in the sense as women then, were seen as closer to god. Why is that women cannot even sometimes leave their own house during their periods, or if they pray their prayers will not be reached? Periods if anything, is the very physical evidence of female’s fertility. Men, who do not have periods, and thus are not connected to the earthly are more pure, and also stands closer to the divine.

It is also noted that men not only are more divine, they are the actors, while women are merely spectators. Why is that the most romantic sex would be where the woman is passive, lying down on her back? This is a very old notion in Western society of how sex should be performed. Men once again, are the actors. This in turn refers back to god, where god created the world, not the woman. We call god the creator and god plants the seed. Men too, plant the seed in women, not only because you plant a seed into the ground but also literary, in English and many other European languages is the semen of men sometimes known as seed.

Why then is the earthly considered so bad that women’s sexuality should even become prosecuted? I cannot honestly answer, more than it seems to be an attempt to demonize pagan religions.

This is an analysis I based on Fall From Grace in Genesis:

My own tack on Fall From Grace? It’s a way to make a claim between the earthly and the divine. You see, in the Abrahamic religions and also in many pagan ones, women in particular are often considered being more “earthly”, because of their difference in fertility. This is primarily based on the fact that women can have children and have periods. This sets women further away from god, since god is divine and not earthly. Don’t you for example think it’s funny it’s Eve who ate the fruit first, not Adam? A serpent is often symbolized with cycles, notice how this seem to fit nicely with periods? Furthermore, this is probably a way for the Abrahamic religions to taint the pagan religions in where female fertility was seen as a positive thing. In paganism too, a cyclist thinking is not that uncommon. So in such a sense, the woman represents nature and paganism, which in Christianity is so far apart as you can get from god. Notice also how it is Eve who later suggested Adam to eat the fruit. Thus all the blame was to be put on Eve. Adam did nothing wrong, after all he is the man, and is closer to god. Even if he did wrong he did less wrong because he doesn’t have periods.

In addition, it is also the child who inherits the sin from its mother, not its father, further explaining that women are tainted but men are not. So frankly, I have actually no idea how some Christians could reproduce with this idea in mind. Going further to not have sex before marriage could be a part where a man who has sex with an unmarried woman will become tainted. Among gypsies, the skirt closest to the body is tainted as well, and among some Muslims women’s underwear cannot be mixed with men’s underwear during washing, or the men’s clothing will be tainted.

I would one day like to see where men’s semen is considered as tainted too, although that will probably not happen. Most often periods are also a sign with lack of body control, and to keep oneself clean and pure. This can be traced even further back from Ancient Greece where there some there were ideals a human should adhere to show dignity. One of those was to keep oneself pure. Of course, this notion too, was constructed by men for men, women were not often considered and even if they were, there were other ideals for them to follow.

Hm, I realize I am too tired to really think more clearly about the matter right now, so I will just continue when more ideas arise. I guess I call this part 1, so if there are anything else to discuss, it will be in part 2. Maybe a more elaborate analysis of From From Grace perhaps?

Image via Wikipedia

If you see the Christian religion, you will notice that in the fundamentals, there is a distinct call for repressing one’s pleasure. This is found from the very first calls for modesty, to the banning of masturbation and sinification (is that a word?) of sex. All of this of course if double as strong when related to women.

I’ve always wondered how can this Joylessness meme which exists in most Abrahamic religions keep replicating in most of their mutations, and occasionally getting so strong so as to deny all forms of pleasure. Especially compared to the pagan religions which not only lacked this meme but on the contrary celebrated all pleasures in life and even had gods specifically assigned to them.

Indeed, the Abrahamic religions went into great lengths to demonify all aspects of Paganism (especially those related to the pleasure gods) so as to convince people that such actions were to be avoided. This was certainly so that their own converts would not be sways by the very powerful pleasure meme. Of course, since the pagans themselves could not be convinced to give this up, other methods of…persuasion were implemented.

Shutting down human urges, especially the sexual ones seems like a recipe for disaster. It builds up aggression, breeds depression and generally is the source of a lot of bad things. Nevertheless, it survives.

I think there must be some kind of sister-meme which not only uses this pent-up pressure to feed and promote the religion but also gives a significant advantage in order to overcome the disadvantage such a behaviour creates to the spreading of the meme. Indeed, the easiest to figure out is one of the ways in which this is expressed in the extremely repressed religion of Islam, where the rules and bans are so much more severe, especially related to sexuality.

Aggression

There is a very strong activism part in Islam (especially the fundamentalist one) which is very difficult for Christians or Atheists to match. Indeed, the ease with which Muslims gather and go on the offensive at the smallest excuse is quite surprising for westerners. The answer of course lies in their own repression. A fundamentalist Muslim not only is controlled by a wealth of inane rules which make their life difficult but is also forbidden from using most of the things that would allow them to relax. Not only that, but because of the allowance for polygamy, it means that there are less women for each male (Most of them of course being taken by the richest and most powerful members of the society). Thus you have a large male populace which has a lot of pent-up aggression and no way to take it out.

Is it surprising that they jump to activism and violence at the drop of a hat? Not only that, but this is quite a powerful competitive meme because it keeps the religion pushing on everyone else and constantly being on the forefront or action.

But another question remains. How do the Christians get rid of the this aggression? It is obvious that the Joylessness meme still exists as exemplified by their constant attempts to stop anything of joy. In the western societies there is no biggest opponent to Sex, drugs and rock&roll than the fundamentalist Christians. Of course these are not the only things that they have in their target. Violent video games (which, incidentally are great for letting out steam), Alcohol (even when you don’t drink it), porn (masturbation facilitator) etc.

Until now, I didn’t have a clear answer to this. I know that fundamentalist Christians are of course much more easy to leap to activism but they are nowhere near the levels the Muslims achieve on a regular basis. Of course, the christian religion is much less repressed than Islam but still, all this pressure has to go out somewhere. They don’t drink, they don’t fuck, they don’t dance…or do they?

[youtube]sfe6nY5qmQY[/youtube]

And another piece of the puzzle falls into place. Whereas normal people would go to a club and dance or headbang, these Christians, who I’m certain are frowning quite a lot at such excursions, think nothing of standing up in their church and doing the “Crazy Monkey”. I’m certain that when they return home, they must find that this was an exhilarating experience and they will choose to interpret their tiredness and strange feeling of peace as the touch of God, never realising that their own bodies need this kind of experience once in a while and those feelings is their own reward.

This practice in turn, not only allows the Christians to nullify the joylessness meme (to a degree) but it also uses that builtup emotion to feed their own god delusions.

I’ve heard about the new kid on the block mentioned a few times before but I didn’t get a chance to read some of the material until Blue Linchpin shared some in Google Reader. Honestly, it was love at first sight. There is some serious Islam pwnage going on there.

If you thought we were bad, wait ’till you get some of this:

[...]Instead the Jews just stand around whining, which is basically all they do in the Quran when they’re not plotting and scheming against Mohammed.  They tell Moses to tell God to get rid of the other people living in the Holy City at the time.  You’d think Moses would just say, “Aw screw you guys.  I’m sick of being your in-between guy.  I’m going to the city myself, and you bitches can find your own place to live.”  I mean, holy hell, isn’t he, like, 500 years old at this time?  Time to grow a fucking pair, Moses.

Seriously, check that shit out

The above (title) is something I decided just now, after watching this video. Specifically, the part that made me take this decision is the 4th chapter which begins on the 58th minute.

Apparently, Quran itself instructs its followers to lie and deceive in the name of promoting Islam. Sure, Muslims will tell you that Islam denounces lies but it is the words of their Prophet himself that specifically allows a member of his cohort to lie in order to slay one of his enemies. and this is of course just one example of the Quran promoting deceit.

I honestly had no idea of this to tell the truth. I could not imagine that religion itself practically teaches people to lie if their purpose is to promote the cause of Islam.

This actually explains quite a lot.

It explains how Muslims can promote themselves as peaceful or whatever but when the concentration of Muslims actually becomes considerate in any given country, violence is certain to occur. They are lying. They are either presenting a facade of a peaceful citizen or they are not aware of what Islam really is about. Unfortunately, given the specific instructions in their holy book, I cannot accept that only the second type exists.

I have thus decided not to trust any Muslim again. This is a radical statement to make but I feel that I am left with no other choice. Especially from a religion, you are supposed to receive correct values that will make you a member of society. When a religion itself instructs you to be a liar and you fail to denounce this religion, then I am left with no other choice but to label you as a liar and take the appropriate social actions people should take against any liar.

Sure, a Mulsim might say that he does not follow that part of the Quran’s teachings but how do I then know that he is not lying once more in order to appease me until he has enough power over me so as not to care if I consider him a deceiver anymore?

When you own beliefs instruct you to become a liar, then the only way to regain my trust if to denounce these beliefs. Anything less can easily be faked.

Ah, and do yourself a favour and watch the video in its entirety and of course specifically the fourth chapter.

UPDATE: In case you can’t be bothered to see the video, at least read this

We now have Muslim Creationist fundamentalists pushing their agenda, in a very dramatic way.

Read the full story here .

My biggest question is, where is the funding for this coming from? Clearly this guy isn’t funding it himself, and “donations” is quite vague. Is the money coming indirectly out of our own (or American) pockets? Is it a byproduct of black market trade, perhaps with our own countries? Personally, I’m more concerned with this than the bullshit message they’re attempting to propagate, since that message seems to be largely ignored by the scientific community they ship the books to, and so far the school systems treat the books like toxic chemicals (Keep Out of Reach of Children!). I know what kind of groups would love to fund a project like this (does this or this look about right? How about this guy?), and they don’t have very clean money.

Again, I am repulsed by the methods of “religious” types. I don’t even know what to say about this anymore.  I feel sick.

I’m guessing this might become a semi-regular series of post since there does not seem to be any shortage of articles that provoke me to write.

My latest “provocation” comes in the form of the reaction of Muslim extremists to the knighting of author Salman Rushdie.

“This is an occasion for the 1.5 billion Muslims to look at the seriousness of this decision,” Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq, religious affairs minister, told the Pakistani parliament in Islamabad. “The west is accusing Muslims of extremism and terrorism. If someone exploded a bomb on his body he would be right to do so unless the British government apologises and withdraws the ‘sir’ title.”

I do not think the irony in the above sentence has been lost on anyone. It is like saying something akin to: “If you call me violent again I’m going to kick your ass“.

Setting that aside for the moment though, the biggest problem lies in the fact that these people are allowed to say these hate-filled inflammatory things. They are “allowed”, not in the sense that someone should silence them (as that would be a violation of freedom of speech), but in the sense that their fellow 1.5 billion Muslims do not raise their voices to condemn such a reaction. There is not a public Muslim outcry, nor do they speak up to distance themselves from these religious fanatics that would rather silence controversial speech than listen and improve.

But no, not only are the Muslims of the world not appalled by these statements but they grant their silent consent and give leeway to fanatics that will attempt to gain a priority ticket to jannah. The only objections that were raised on this? That he deserves judgment before being killed and that maybe the sentence only counts if he is in an Islamic country.

Unfortunately, it is in the name of “Respect” that people don’t judge this horrid religion as befits it. Just because there exists a minority of peaceful Muslims who cry wolf every time their precious beliefs are insulted.

And then they have the gall to go out in the street and burn the book!
I wonder how these people would take it a few thousand people gathered, burned Qur’ans and shat on the drawings of Mohammad?
They expect us to respect their ridiculous delusions, but for them that also entails allowing them to step on freedom of speech ( I remind that the book was banned on almost all Islamic countries while they also tried to ban it in the UK. See the Timeline of Hate here), trying to force whole nations from exercising their traditions, accept their seething hatred for a single man etc.

Dawkins indeed had the right of it. Who is hiding all those people that bombed Bookshops – for fuck’s sake, Bookshops! – but the same “peaceful” Muslims living in the first world countries? They leave their oppressive countries to come to us and then they try to make this society afraid in the same way they were.

For them, the Knighting of a person who has granted so much to literature is an attack on Islam! For them it can only be respect if we act according to sharia and nothing else. Why then should I “respect” the rights of them to wear the clothes their religion requires, when they are not appropriate? Why should I respect their wish to keep their own religious holidays or anything else they wish to claim? Why should we respect anything?

I say Fuck ‘Em! Fuck their Mohammad and fuck their imams and fuck their worthless, piece-of-shit, excuse for a holy book. If they want my respect, they’d better earn it for it does not come cheap and it certainly does not come under threat of violence. The more they force me to “respect” them (ergo, shut my mouth) the more I will spit in their eye, piss on their religious symbols and laugh at their ridiculous and horribly outdated traditions.

And that goes for all Monotheists as well.