kpr37

Worshiping at the altar of the god of political correctness: a pagan's perspective

  
By:  kpr37  •  political correctness  •  5 years ago  •  6 comments

Worshiping at the altar of the god of political correctness: a pagan's perspective

Reporting on the "leftist-septicemia-meme"

Now some may not like my title, that's just too bad. Really it is. Political correctness falls under the definition of a religion . (def # 2)


a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons


People worship it's politically correct concepts and ideas as an infallible system of belief. In much the same way as found in any other faith- based system of belief. They can be found ceaselessly in a loud authoritative voice vigorously proselytize to the non-believing. Using delusion and fantasy to get the point across. While attempting to put fear into the heart of the non-believer. Using terms familiar and recognizable to believers of other faiths. Those who refuse to recognize or worship at the feet of this new deity are referred to as the Neocon, the RWNJ, the politically incorrect, they are all outside the community of belief, they're people who don't believe as the "P C" crew do, so they are piously looked at and referred to as heretics   (def #3)


anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle.


As we all know, heretics need to be ostracized and made an example of before the community of belief. This action is demonstrating solidarity among the community. It reinforces group think, fostering a common cause while projecting hostility to those opposed to the communities ideological viewpoint.

For an Irish pagan you see, I've always known that any set of shared beliefs that are widely held and can not be readily supported by multiple independent sources are faith-based delusions. Religions, all of them, are faith-based delusions. That's why they are called faiths and not facts.

I recognize this faith-based delusion in myself. I have the imaginary friend (G*d) delusion. Recognizing that I have little to no supporting evidence. I am forced to take it on faith that I am correct. To insist time and time again, that I'm right, just because I think I'm right, would be more delusional than absolutely necessary. I am the only one who must believe my delusion. I don't care what you believe. The god of political correctness, unfortunately, rejects free will or matters of conscience in public discourse, and demands I believe as instructed.

It's a personal faith based decision I have made, in rejecting this false god of political correctness

Secularism is not based on faith, it is the word used to describe how we as a nation function. Separating what we take as faith, from cold hard, observable, supportable, reality. Many people have traditionally found an escape from reality through religions. The reality experienced was too harsh to accept, so they find comfort in retreating from reality into their warm embracing womb of faith.

Political correctness is only a different way (faith/god/delusion) to see the world through a distorted view of reality, confirming and reinforcing some comforting preconceived notions, in support of the larger overall delusion. There are as many and varied god delusions as there are humans inhabiting the earth, and there is no place at all for any god delusion in government. I will concentrate on only one of the god delusions here. It's a new god delusion, as compared with the more traditional ones. This delusion is usually held by people who have found the previous god delusion intellectually or spiritually lacking, and not suited to their way of thinking. It's this conclusion that leads many to be completely unable to distinguish between any religion and another religion. Since they have dismissed them all, they become indistinguishable from one another. It's a condition common to both Democrats and Republican, it's not restricted by party affiliation.

They have however found in the more recent ideas of man, a replacement theology for the older ideas of man. Said to be divine by the holders of the other, older, more traditional G*d delusions. Man always searches for answers and is quick to accept what is agreeable to his or her own cultural and ideological predisposition.

This relatively modern god concept ( or life perceptive, ideology) is a culturally produced manifestation of this very real human naturally occurring predisposition to search the mind in pursuit of absolutes, in life as well as philosophy. Man prefers the certain to the unknown and has rejected reality historically time and time again, feebly clinging to what he feels is certain, even after it's been conclusively proven false. This can best be ascribed to a cognitive egocentrism.  Which is in this particular case is (in the here and now) shown as a need to interpret ‘their’ way of thinking and behavior as essentially the same as "our" way of thinking. Taking the position that you must give the same ‘rational’ explanation for everyone’s behavior as you do to your own reasoning used to arrive at conclusions. We are all just people, after all, we all think alike.

No, people do not think alike. Ways of thinking (individual reasoning) are heavily influenced by culture, and that means it's limited to religion on some parts of the globe. All nations who use Arabic as a national language, not located on the Arabian peninsula have substituted religion for culture. It's been imposed at one time or another by conquest and is kept in place by applied violence. This systematic usage of applied violence continually expands the parts of the globe that are replacing culture with a strict religious dogma. It's insensitive and not politically correct to point out this resurgent effect of an unrestrained societal-religious Concupiscence display of "libido dominandi" announcing itself once more on the world's stage.

I will refer to his new (man-made) way of thinking (religion) here, as worshiping at the altar of the " god of political correctness" .

It ( the god of political correctness) is a harsh irrational deity, similar to the concept first presented over three thousand years ago and recounted in the old testament.(Since revised by Jews, and Christians alike) It took at least several hundred years for the ancient god concept to become workable, what happened from Abraham to Mosses is unclear. And yet, in the twenty-first century, incredibly, it still thrives and vastly outperforms all neighboring life encompassing systems of beliefs. The early Israelites rebelled themselves, preferring a golden calf to a new set of rules. Only ten of them at that , if I'm not mistaken. This new god, the "politically correct one" has thousands of rules, interlocking, supporting one another .  In ways, only a true believer can only hope to understand or begin to appreciate. To an outsider, it's all just gibberish and nonsensical dogma anyway. As all faith-based systems of belief are viewed by all outsiders or non-believers.

Ten rules, a people can grow accustomed to over time, say forty years or so of wandering. Thousands of rules, not so much in a single administration.


In fact, a growing number of regulations are being delayed at federal agencies or at the White House. The list includes a rule cracking down on junk food at school bake sales


Chocolate Fudge, frosted cupcakes, or brownies, are not now, and never should be a concern of the federal government.(dietary restrictions have historically been the realm of religions) This is a government that may legalize Marijuana while restricting Chocolate fudge, frosted cupcakes, and brownies. hello, is anybody out there!! Think about that man, what an irrational deity you "P C" dudes worship.


another banning children from dangerous work on farmily farms


I worked on a farm as a child,(my uncles) rarely was I paid,(work was paid for, chores were not) it was fun, not a job, and driving the tractor was a reward instead of money. Has no one seen a family farm? There is little on a farm not dangerous, big animals, heavy equipment and loads of distractions. I mean chopping wood is dangerous

Aren't these new rules from the same people who say religion is a man made construct. And has no place in a secular society. Aren't these new rules just a politically correct god construct? Based on, and substituting, the ideas of a pre-existing god concept with a bright shiny brand new one? Weren't the old rules no good because they were man-made, not Divine? Just who came up with these new rules again? I never followed Jewish religious law, I see no need to follow the politically correct god's law either.  I feel personally complete, following the well-known natural laws of G*d, gravity ," staying grounded" , not going faster than the speed of light and such with my physical body. I think this is all any god requires of me to be compliant with know divine laws. Note to progressives, please follow Jewish tradition, they don't eat pork, but they do not insist others don't as well. If your politically correct god, hates sugar, don't eat it! But I love sweet Iced tea with my Barbecued pig ribs, and restrictions on either is not likely to be negotiable

Dietary restrictions, ( kosher ) labor restrictions ( lamed tet avot melakhot ‎) environmental law (Bal Tashchit) not a competing religious system of belief at all. Oh no, I'm sure it's not. Not done to serve a higher purpose, Oh no, again, I'm sure it's not. It is just common sense and the way we all should live? (LOL) what's that word I'm looking for here?.... secularism

This new god construct (God of political-correctness) also demands a strict adherence to a set of orthodox, unsupported ideological beliefs, leading to an eventual "claimed" future salvation. (encompassing personal, national, and world salvation) Both concepts claim living your life according to their set of beliefs will improve the overall condition of mankind. One has an over three thousand year history of some notable success. The other one, the verdict is still out . But the experience is not looking well for the European politically correct experiment.

We all know the term "politically correct". We all know it's a relatively new term. We know that America was not a politically correct nation in the 1940s as we fought a world war. Yet in the here and now, we find political correctness intruding upon our daily lives more and more. Historically, the first usage of the term I could find was in a Supreme Court ruling. Sourced from Cornell law. In which an opinion was given in which a legal objection was raised to the wording of a common toast of the time, it actually made its way to the highest court in the land as part of a more complex case.

Chisholm v. Georgia , 1793


" 'The United States' instead of the 'People of the United States' is the toast given. This is not politically correct ."


This was I believe used in the literal meaning of the words. The words in the context of American politics were incorrectly used. It was a disputed decision, and lead to the passage of the 11th amendment to the Constitution . The phrase had no real bearing on the decision. A more common explanation for political correctness can be found here.

A look at the terms linguistic origins in a more in depth academic way can be found here


Nearly all the authors who have engaged in this diachronic research agree on the fact that the term was used sarcastically among leftists to criticize themselves for taking radical doctrines to absurd extremes . The most common use was ironic.

It was always used in a tone mocking the pities of our own insular political counter-culture, as in "we could stop at McDonalds's down the road if your're hungry ... but it wouldn't be politically correct."23

It seems clear from various accounts that {politically correct} was used as an in-group marker and understood by insiders as a joke at their own expense. It was used to criticize the group's own tendency towards humourlessness and orthodox party lines , poking fun at the notion that anyone could be wholly "correct".24

Wilson points out that many conservatives overlook the self-critical origins of the phrase. Dinesh D'Souza writes that

The term "political correctness" seems to have originated in the early part of this century, when it was employed by various species of Marxists to describe and enforce conformity to preferred ideological positions. ... The revolutionary ideologues of that period were serious people, and there is no indication that they spoke of political correctness with any trace of irony or self-depravation.


How the similarities in the individual god delusions strike a disconcerting chord, can be found in the words used to describe the delusion, clearly identifying it as a god delusion. It does for a pagan anyway. This new god concept has the exact same penalty for non-compliance. Burning in hell, it only arrives at the destination by a different route. (Global warming)   But it's Satan (temptation) in one system of belief and (oil, carbon) in the other, that leads both sets of devotees to the same sad end. Disappointing their separate concepts of G*d.

Global Warming Gomorrah In Hell: Welcome To Washington!


OK, so Washington (and a bunch of other East Coast cities) just saw its warmest month in modern history. That would be July 2011 , and my greener friends were very happy. “At least now maybe the politicians will listen,”


If you don't support my unsupported meme, we are all going to "Hell" (LOL) Where I have I heard that before. Even throws in an unrelated biblical reference. This was a few years ago, and hell is still fast approaching this year with record temps once more. Good golly Miss Molly,  she heard on good authority from chicken little that the sky is falling for sure. If you look too closely at the evidence, or what is happening behind your back, you may be turned into a pillar of salt.

Now the eerie similarities between the politically correct deity and the deity of the Islamic faith. They are as, two brothers who share a shameful bed. Questioning, or criticising the dogma of the Islamic faith will get a harsh response from a devotee of the politically correct deity. Leading to accusations of having a psychological condition, called a phobia. Islamophobia... Meaning, having a deeper and sourced understanding of the faith than they are comfortable debating.

Just as some religious people distort history to conform with their religious memes, such as a six thousand-year-old earth. The politically correct deity distorts history to suit its delusion. One of the modern high priests of this "P C" delusion was, and is still, even after death, Edward Said. Who's book of politically correct dogma, Orientalism, came out in 1978, a bible of sorts of the reinvented or revisionist history, anti-western crowd?

Feeding the unsuspecting world a meme that was a historically inaccurate narrative. Bordering on a form of anti-intellectual claptrap hidden in a repugnant moral recidivism (hubris) And viewed through a lens of history's perpetual "innocent" victim. (Arabs/ Islamism). The entire reason for the book was to attack any previous work by Western scholars who viewed and wrote about the culture and religion of the Orient. They critiqued it as they would their own culture and religion, meaning with a detached critical eye. This was viewed as racist because an outsider could never understand the certitudes, the majesty, and inherent truth of the  Arab experience.  Edward Lane was one of those focused upon in the intellectual attack of Mr. Said. He was a true giant of the study of the middle east and the culture and life of its populous. Mr. Said due to culturally imposed, personal limitations, could not understand the pursuit of knowledge, simply for the sake of acquiring said knowledge. Sinister motivations are attributed to Mr. Lane's study of Egypt. As Mr. Said is intellectually trapped, or confined in the zero sum imperative and assumptions, (honor/shame paradigm) still vibrant and intellectually a poignant reminder of the tribal based cultural and religious traditions of the Arabs.


Aristotle defined hubris as follows: to cause shame to the victim, not in order that anything may happen to you, nor because anything has happened to you, but merely for your own gratification . Hubris is not the requital of past injuries; this is revenge. As for the pleasure in hubris, its cause is this: men think that by ill-treating others they make their own superiority the greater. [3] Crucial to this definition are the ancient Greek concepts of honor (timē) and shame. The concept of timē included not only the exaltation of the one receiving honor, but also the shaming of the one overcome by the act of hubris. This concept of honor is akin to a zero-sum game

. Rush Rehm simplifies this definition to the contemporary concept of " insolence, contempt, and excessive violence ".


Walt Disney (pdf) and Aladdin is the new target and seen as the victimizer of Arabs and their culture in the updated take on the evil Orientalist.

Setting up the idea that if a culture is not revered (loved), it must be reviled (hated).

In the zero-sum game, there is only us and the other. Winner, loser.. a Victimizer and victimized. Man /woman, Muslim/ kafir.

Arbitrary designation of identity is a trait common among all god delusions. Usually, it's separation of the believer from the non-believer. But the politically correct god has many more ways to separate people, and it makes far less sense. To the god of political correctness, I'm Caucasian, even though I have a light tan skin tone and no connection with the Caucasus Mountains or any relation with the inhabitants of said mountains.

I'm, in (pc) reality, a North Atlantic Islander, with perhaps a touch of Afro Caribbean tossed in the mix, thanks to the British slave trade.

The idea of penance is adopted as well, from older more established faiths, as the political correct god is unoriginal, and plagiarizes, or borrows most all its own concepts from other faiths.

The racial discrimination carried out openly on University campuses penalizing Asian and European populations in America is in supplication to this god of political correctness. It is for the sins passed down for the acknowledged participation in the slavery of their ancestors. (original sin if you will) Even though there are few people on the earth who's ancestors did not hold a slave at one point in time. Asians had a minimal if existent involvement is the Atlantic slave trade anyways. The word slave  itself comes from the medieval Latin and it describes people from the German frontier, Slavic people "White" people. Slavery is as old as mankind and predates America by many millennia. But when penance is called for by a deity, the devotees willingly supplicate their better judgment in hope of absolution. Many American Professors are no more than high priests of the deity called political correctness. Others suffer the crude taunts of their peers, and academic advancement in the body politic of the university is found mysteriously hindered. Religious persecution to enforce an Orthodox dogma has never gone out of style in academia. Certainly not in Boston, the birth place of American religious intolerance. How do you think we got Rhode Island .

Religion, when you get down to it, is just an unsupported meme. All religion, therefore, is nothing more an unsupported meme competition. Politics is not much better, it is a barely supported meme competition. Under the three tons of bullshit covering up a politician's words, there could be a supportable idea buried at the bottom of that load of shit covering the meme. Not absolutely true, but possibly true.

This is where the fear sets in!! For a secular pagan anyway. I see you combining your politically correct god, with the governing of the nation. Your deity, which is a political "deity construct" to begin with, should stay out of government. I think it is a clear violation of the separation of church and state.

I hear the mantra of your politically correct god chanted across university campuses. Leftism may be the fastest growing religious dogma on the planet. (Western Hemisphere)

Let me introduce the holy trinity of the clearly perceptible and observable leftist god concept.

" All cultures are equal and valid and must be respected as such " The chant drones on.

I piss all over your politically correct god construct. I call it nothing more than a devoted idiot's slogan and a neo-modern substitute for medieval iconography and point out that believing does not make one saintly, nor does the number of believers make it a correct system of belief.

Especially if you are talking your nonsense to a Gay or lesbian atheist from Saudi Arabia.

" Moral relativism " is but another unsupported meme of the god of political correctness. As if morally unacceptable behavior, can be changed by a place, and the ethnic background or the religious persuasion of people committing the unacceptable acts.

'Rape-law' triggers fury in Jordan and similar articles can be found here


But Israa Tawalbeh, the country’s first woman coroner, sees “nothing wrong in Article 308 as such.”

“The problem is how some localand international human rights groups interpret the law,” she told AFP. “ Actual rape cases are rare in our society.


The unintended consequences of reporting a rape in Jordan, is in some cases, worse than the rape itself. Five more years of rape at the hands of your rapist, or being murdered by your own family.


Sometimes, girls under 18 lose their virginity to force their families to accept marriage to their boyfriends. The law categorizes this as rape.”

Tawalbeh said the law “solves problems for some.”


Yes, I'm sure the rapists love the law, it's the proverbial "wet dream" of degenerates , and lonely perverts the world over.


“Accepting marriage under Article 308 is better than leaving girls to be killed by their parents or relatives,” she said.


Cultural diversity, multiculturalism, all cultures and equal and valid, one no better than the other.

Who are we to judge?


“I think the law fits our society and reality. It protects the girls by forcing attackers to marry them.”


Why rape a woman only one time, when you can continue the rape for a minimum of five years.


In Jordan, between 15 and 20 women are murdered annually in the name of “honour” and at least six such killings have been reported so far this year, according to authorities.


Female genital mutilation is morally unacceptable, as is forcing a victim to marry the victimizer in the Islamic world as it is here in America because pretending it not real, is a transparent delusion.

At no time and in no place are things like this excusable

This is from an American source, but it's an Egyptian woman reporting


Horrific news reports about 12-year-old girls dying in childbirth  do little to stem the tide of child marriage there. Instead, demonstrations in support of child marriage outstrip those against it, fueled by clerical declarations that opponents of state-sanctioned pedophilia are apostates because the Prophet Mohammed, according to them, married his second wife, Aisha, when she was a child


page four.


What hope can there be for women in the new Egyptian parliament, dominated as it is by men stuck in the seventh century? A quarter of those parliamentary seats are now held by Salafis, who believe that mimicking the original ways of the Prophet Mohammed is an appropriate prescription for modern life


While no irrational meme, is better or more valid, than any other irrational unsupported meme. Some memes are worse than other memes. Political correctness denies that a distinction can be made.

Secularism!!!!......don't tread on it.

Ignorance or Jahiliyah

A third of the trinity is taken from Islamic sources.

It's the idea or meme that any thought or idea that came before the favored system of belief is pure unadulterated ignorance. But both god concepts ignore this, however. (Neither could exist without the system of beliefs that came first) In Islamic thought, it's called the age of "Jahiliyah" or pre-system of belief. The Islamic era replaced all thought and ideas other than Islamic ones. Pre-existing ideas and concepts were discounted, discredited, and viciously and un-relentlessly attacked. In the politically correct god delusion, it's the pre-progressive era, "religious" and neocon thought that is the designated enemy in need of discrediting, and attacked. It's easier than refuting facts, a trait common to both god concepts. The demonization of those who hold a differing system of belief is taken directly from the teachings of Mohammad. Today, we see the purposeful and wanton destruction of statues, representational art, monuments not conforming with their particular system of belief, as they can not co-exist with one another, existing as replacement ideologies.

Donald trump was elected, then demonized as a "fascist" a "nazi" and an agent of Russia, in protest of his ideas or memes that were found unacceptable to a group of people lacking the intellectual ability to challenge the validity of the ideas they oppose. Diversity does not demand the importation of this form of "debate". Any attack is Ok as long as it helps your meme gain superiority. Intimidation works as well as if not better than facts. If extreme violence is not immediately penalized and suppressed it is more than likely to fast become an accepted tactic. It is giving an unfair advantage to one system of belief in the battle of ideas and the validity of either.

This mashing together of various religious memes is not a bizarre new phenomenon. Since the first proto-human mutants emerged from the primordial ooze, of early human DNA. It (an early human) at one point, stood on two legs after eating, and scratched its ass, belched, looked at the night sky, or Sun, and wondered why? why am I?, what am I?

The first recognition of the possibility of a "something more concept" more than could be seen, or experienced in this realm, was the start of the god delusion. Mankind has only copied and expanded on that basic concept since. Some god concepts were successful and lasting. Others momentary and fleeting, in a historical time line. Some concepts should make a comeback to their historic levels (Zoroastrianism) and others are best kept to the dustbin of history ( the Plumed Serpent Quetzalcoatl and its cult of human sacrifice). Not all god delusions are equal and valid or compatible with a modern society. If the Aztecs made a comeback and started slipping across the Texas border, taking captives, cutting out their hearts, then skinning them so a priest could slip into the warm damp skin of the freshly dead. Would it be acceptable to complain? or would the concept of religious freedom come into play? Would that be bigoted to protest? It is, after all, a meme of the politically correct deity to respect and honor all systems of belief as equal and valid after all.

What does the religious freedom concept mean to a devotee of the Politically correct? where is the line drawn? Is that freedom to do anything that can be said to be religious in nature pass the test. If it's part of an old religious tradition, does that make it Ok? If it can be found in the codified text of a recognized system of belief is it ok.


Narrated Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-'As:

The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: Command your children to pray when they become seven years old, and beat them for it (prayer) when they become ten years old; and arrange their beds (to sleep) separatel


  https://sunnah.com/abudawud/2/105

I understand if you want to raise a vicious dog, you beat it. So it only stands to reason if you want to produce a future jihadist, struggling with all his might in the cause of 'allah', (and who doesn't think that's a swell idea) one might teach a child a similar life lesson. But when a child is treated in the same reprehensible manner as a fighting dog. I feel it's time for civil authorities to step in, and override a religious meme (imaginary) With the far superior secular humanist meme,(actual) that clearly says a child is worthy of better treatment than that what is commonly afforded or given a fighting animal, a dog. Civil authorities would be far more willing to protect the dog that is struck in furtherance of fighting. Well before the child is protected from violence in furtherance of a religious meme in an educational environment. A sad commentary on the memes of political correctness. If you were to ask me.


The court heard Patel used physical violence to discipline the boys aged between 10 and 16 between January 1, 2011 and October 19, 2011.

He used to strike the children around the back of the head and on the back with his fists during religious lessons at the mosque .


 (source)

Reading about the anal bomber , who underwent repeated acts of voluntary sodomy, on his at one time, unfortunately too tight jihadist ass. In the pious and religiously motivated hope of enlarging his anus's circumference, so as to fit a larger diameter bomb into his anal cavity. I was struck by the not so sophisticated insanities of those devoted to the politically correct deity. Like the habit of mindlessly repeating the term religious freedom. We need to better and further define the word religion. Because while I'm cool with the word freedom's definition. We do need to find a new way of thinking about and experiencing and expressing that simple concept religion. But the human mind wearies quickly before such a monumental task.

It's not going to be easy.

I looked up just what religious guiding principles might suggest a vigorous and repeated ass fucking by several friends as a way for one to draw nearer to their god, and no shit. I found it. At The Nigerian Da'wah Institute. https://www.scribd.com/document/344554456/what-is-islamic-culture-pdf

Da'wah is spreading the faith. While there are many ways to spread the faith, this one falls under the rules of jihad. Or the violently oppressive use of force as a persuasive tool to gain submission from an unwilling group of humans.

 


This the the well known principle of Usal al-fiqh in Arabic is called "Al-'asl fil ashya' al-ibahah"

The legal premise of everything is permissible .

See Yusuf Qaradadawi brief dicussion of this principle in the Lawful and the prohibited in Islam. London Al-birr foundation 2003 pp 3-7


everything is permissible if it is in furtherance of an Islamic objective (Jihad)


Boko Haram News- The Boko Haram sect who claimed responsibility of the recent attacks of five churches in the North, killing 100 worshippers including little children, have reveal their motive behind the attacks.

According to a letter by the sect spokesman, Abu Qaqa ” “Today Almighty Allah has given us victory against Christian Churches in Kaduna and Zaria which led to the deaths of many Christians and security operatives. For peace to reign in the land, all Christians must convert to Islam . Allah has tasked all Muslims in Quran chapter 9 verse 29 to continue to attack Jews and Christians who refused to believe in him and his messenger, Prophet Mohammed”.


Sourced by NG news

They seem to understand the verse in a literal way as if it were the direct immutable words of a Deity or something.


"Let them know that now it's the time for revenge God willing," the group said in a statement.

" From now on, they either follow the right religion or there will be no peace for them."


Submit, or face the continuation of the Jihad

sourced by CNN


The group has said it wants to impose Islamic sharia law across the oil-rich country split equally between Christians and Muslims.

"We are certain we will dismantle this government and establish Islamic government in Nigeria," Abu Qaqa said.

"There is no doubt in our minds we will emerge victorious.

"We are calling on all Muslims in this part of the world to accept the clarion call and fight for the restoration of the Caliphate."


Sourced by al-jazeera

The Sokoto Caliphate was one of the most destructive, and bloody Islamist movements in West African history.

Everything is permissible if it is in furtherance of an Islamic objective


“The pastors alongside one Ibo man were asked to change their faith to Islam like they did to other people taken as hostages . And there was an argument by one of the pastors which gave the others some level of confidence to also resist accepting Islam.

“The Yusufiya men who were armed on that Tuesday afternoon were not comfortable with the pastors and they took one of them to the sect leader in his inner chamber. They came out later to the courtyard within the compound and cut their heads one after the other and thereafter, shouted allah akbar in wild celebration accompanied with several gun shots,” the eye witness disclosed.

Corroborating the account of the killing, a Senior pastor with Good News Church, Wulari Maiduguri Rev. Baba Gata Ibrahim told Daily Sun in an interview that a pastor in his church, Pastor George Orjih was beheaded on the instruction of the Boko Haram leader because the clergy man refused to accept Islam.

The late Pastor George Orjih was said to have arrived Maiduguri last week from Jos where he was doing his Masters programme in Theology. Described as a fearless, hardworking, and intellectually sound, his care for the welfare and well being of his family allegedly contributed to his capture and eventual death. “He was mindful of his family and their welfare. He was really out of the house but thought to go back again. That was how he was captured by the Boko Haram before he was killed,’’ the senior pastor added.

“An eye witness who was also captured by the Islamic militants gave us details of how the pastor was killed. He told us they were persuading him to accept Islam and he said over his dead body. He was even said to have preached Christ to Mohammed Yusuf and that reportedly angered the sect leader who then as he ordered that the pastor and others be killed immediately,” he disclosed.


Christians have the G*d given right to turn the other cheek , and Nigerian Muslims have the 'allah' given right to slaughter them wherever they find them. It's in the Quran!

That's what multiculturalism is all about. (right ? )

One culture, no better than the other. Living side by side, each practicing their particular system of beliefs.

You're not one of those people (neocon/RWNJ) who thinks that there is a difference between living peaceably with your neighbor, and killing them are you?

What do you call those people?

Sensible?

Moral?

Humanists?

Certainly not politically correct.

Remember, it is these people, the politically correct who like to think that they have the high moral ground. Funny they are..hey?

Tags

jrBlog - desc
[]
 
kpr37
Professor Quiet
link   author  kpr37    5 years ago

If anyone is wondering what my intent is, perhaps this will be seen as a clue.

 
 
 
kpr37
Professor Quiet
link   author  kpr37    5 years ago

Aristotle often evaluated a thing with respect to its “telos” – its purpose, end, or goal. The telos of a knife is to cut. The telos of a physician is health or healing. What is the telos of university?

The harvard most obvious answer is “truth” –- the word appears on so many university crests. But increasingly, many of America’s top universities are embracing social justice as their telos, or as a second and equal telos. But can any institution or profession have two teloses (or teloi )? What happens if they conflict?

As a social psychologist who studies morality, I have watched these two teloses come into conflict increasingly often during my 30 years in the academy. The conflicts seemed manageable in the 1990s. But the intensity of conflict has grown since then, at the same time as the political diversity of the professoriate was plummeting , and at the same time as American cross-partisan hostility was rising . I believe the conflict reached its boiling point in the fall of 2015 when student protesters at 80 universities demanded that their universities make much greater and more explicit commitments to social justice, often including mandatory courses and training for everyone in social justice perspectives and content.

Now that many university presidents have agreed to implement many of the demands, I believe that the conflict between truth and social justice is likely to become unmanageable.   Universities will have to choose, and be explicit about their choice, so that potential students and faculty recruits can make an informed choice. Universities that try to honor both will face increasing incoherence and internal conflict.

 

 

 
 
 
kpr37
Professor Quiet
link   author  kpr37    5 years ago

Aristotle asked about areté  (excellence/virtue) and telos  (purpose/goal), and he used the  metaphor that people are like archers, who need a clear target at which to aim. Without a target  or goal, one is left with the animal default: Just let the elephant graze or roam where he pleases.  And because elephants live in herds, one ends up doing what everyone else is doing.”

 
 
 
kpr37
Professor Quiet
link   author  kpr37    5 years ago

In our society, we tend to believe--without any hard proof, mind you-- that we each have a potential that we can and, more importantly, should work toward realizing. In fact, most people agree that the best of us are those who strive to lead lives of excellence, who seek to perform at the peak of our abilities no matter the circumstances.

But where did this idea of an individual human potential come from? It can't have come from Christianity, a religion that views human nature as innately flawed and unable to perfect itself without divine assistance. After all, the aim of life in Christianity is not achieving excellence; it's salvation.

No, to locate the source of our belief that we can be better, we have to look to the Greeks, for they developed a concept known as Arête. Putting this word into modern English is difficult. Some translators use the word goodness , others excellence and still others virtue . However we translate it, though, it seems to mean something like "being the best it is possible to be."

Moreover, the Greek notion of a human arête changed over time. In the Iliad , an epic tale emerging from the distant Greek past, it is a term associated with warriors who exemplify bravery, fierceness and physical skill. Characters like Achilles or Hector represent a nearly perfect realization of humanity in a war-like, tribal society.

In The Odyssey, a slightly later epic, arête is used to describe Odysseus, who combines the warrior-hero's courage with wit, cunning and resourcefulness. Arête is also used to describe Odysseus's wife, Penelope, who demonstrates that even misfortune and sorrow can be suffered with excellence.

And lastly, the Greeks provide us with still another manifestation of arête : Socrates, a very new and different kind of Greek hero. Socrates was a real person, a Fifth Century BCE Athenian who has come to symbolize for us the life dedicated to the pursuit of moral and intellectual excellence.

Last time, of course, I told you that this class was a seminar in which we would explore two thematic questions. To remind you, those questions were

What is an educated person? In other words, what do they know? What can they do? How should we define one? And just as importantly, am I
one?

And what responsibilities do educated people have to society? Do they have any? And if so, what are they?

Essentially, then, what we will be doing this semester is having a conversation that grapples with these two questions. Various readings will keep our conversation going by providing us with answers to think about and critique.

I also gave you a poem to read last time and we briefly discussed it. If you remember, its title also came in the form of a question: Why the Classics? By classics, of course, the poet, Zbigniew Herbert, meant classical literature or, more specifically, the literature of ancient Greece and Rome. As you know, too, the first thing we are going to read in the seminar is The Apology by Plato, an important classical dialog.

So we are beginning our discussion with a 2,400-year old text for a good reason. The Greeks, as I have suggested, gave us one of the oldest answers to the question of what is an educated person? They said that an educated person is one who more fully realizes his or her potential for excellence, one who strives to lead an excellent life . Whether we agree with this or not, it is an answer that is still very much on the table in this debate, as we will no doubt discover in our own future discussions.

 

 
 
 
kpr37
Professor Quiet
link   author  kpr37    5 years ago

Today’s culture reflects t he success of James and Dewey. Contemporary society in the Un ited States embraces a shared morality without a shared understanding of the basis of that morality. Political correctness , as a popular expression of post-modernist thought, tells each of us what to say, write, think, and feel, but leaves the issue of wh at is true unaddressed. Ideology has become a cod e word for close mindedness. Beliefs are seen as p olarizing and divisive – destructive of con sensus buildi ng. Extremists are not pragmatic. High school and college students are taught to engag e in the intellectual exercise of deconstruction . If ideologies are nothing more than created rationalizati ons to justify some desired action, then expressed ideologies need to be deconstructed to understand the psychological, economic, emotional, or other self-focused bases for their having been created. Students need not read philosoph y, much less develop one of their own , because ideas and beliefs do not m atter. Action matters; ideology does not. Young people today are taught that their identity is formed not by what they believe, but by what group (race, class, gender, ethnicity) they belong to. They are taught not that people are equal, but that they are inherently different – and that difference is rooted in group identifi cation. This teaching serves as the  basis for diversity pro grams in businesses and s chools throughout t he country. Blacks think different ly than whites. Poor people thin k differently than rich people. Men think di fferently from women.

Accordingly, we need diversity so as to gain exposure to these different ways of thinking . Group identity determines who one is, what on e values, and how one think s. In this context, why read Pl ato or Rousseau? Their works merely convey ho w rich white men in their resp ective ages rationalized thei r  psychological needs an d selfish desires. A recent survey of college freshmen in 2005 found that only 45% of that year’s incoming college students believed that it was “essential” or “very important” to develop a meaningful philosophy of life. This contrasts with 85.8% of similarly situated freshmen in 1967.

A recent survey of college freshmen in 2005 found that only 45% of that year’s incoming college students believed that it was “essential” or “very important” to develop a meaningful philosophy of life. This contrasts with 85.8% of similarly situated freshmen in 1967.

 For many years in the 1960’s and 1970’s high school seniors were asked to describe their worldviews or philosophi es of life in college application essays. Today, most aspiring college studen ts are asking to describe their recent charity work. The emphasis is on doing, not thinking; and doing in a way that demonstrates conformity to prevailing moral imperatives . Young people are told that they have duties and responsibi lities, which they are far more aware of than their rights and freed oms. They have grown up in a wo rld of political correctn ess in which they are compelled to confo rm their words and behavi ors to accepted moral norms.

 

Link

 

Full text  ANTI- INTELLECTUALISM IN AMERICAN LIFE by RICHARD HOFSTADTER

 

 
 
 
kpr37
Professor Quiet
link   author  kpr37    5 years ago