• Many liberals as well as Conservatives have asserted that Islamic countries burkamistreat their women and also that they enforce a style of justice that is barbaric. Conservatives believe in a god for the most part. Their god provides for them a basis from which they feel morally obligated to tell Islamic countries that they should not do what they do. Theirs is an objective morality.

    Liberals have for the most part no such god, no such basis, and have subjective morality. Their morality is not absolute, and therefore can be classified as relative. Morality is based on the culture, or it cannot be relative. Therefore, beheadingliberals have no basis from which to argue that an Islamic regime, no matter what they do, is immoral. After all, the Islamic regime is operating from absolutes, from objective morality issued by their god.

    There are those among the thoughtful, the freethinking society, that have considered there might indeed be some objective morals, non-relative, that should apply to all… not issued by any deity. I am  among those who consider this. Of course there are those who deny this and say that everything that comes from the human mind is subjective. However, I think subjective is what applies to specific cultures, while objective applies to the entirety of our species.

    Atheists have been repetitively condemned for having a relative subjectiveStiff lip morality. They have been accused of being a lecherous lot, a community where everything goes. Stiff-lipped Christians have so proclaimed it.

    Yet, murder is just as repugnant to atheists as it is to Christians. Beheading is just as barbaric to one as the other. Harming someone without cause just as objectionable to both. Stealing is looked down upon by believer and heathen alike. Might there be some morals more encompassing? Might there be wrongs that are wrong to everybody? Could these be the objective morals?

    There are many definitions of objective. Ignoring the one that proclaims objective things exist outside the mind and embracing the definition where that objective thing is instead based on facts, not feelings or opinions, may we have leave to say we may have identified objective morality?

    We can, I do say it, despite the ravings of the few that will object. Barbaric treatment is barbaric no matter where it happens. Even in those countries where it is exercised there are many that deplore it. Without objective morality you can but look on and clench your fist and grind your teeth… shut your mouth. Recognizing that there are indeed non-religion based objective morals gives one the platform from which to shout “Hey you, that’s wrong!” If you proclaim morality relative all you can do is hope the dentist bill is not too high as your teeth grind in your head. Of course you can shout anyway, smiling pigbut you have no foundation for your proclamations. The Imams can just turn to you and with a sneer shout back “You eat pig you infidel”.

    What are these objective, non-religious based, objective morals? Well, not to harm others seems likely. Some say that “Whatever promotes human flourishing and survival is good. Whatever doesn’t promote human flourishing and survival is bad.” I don’t know about that, humans could reason that this group of people must die for humans overall to survive. You know, the old for the good of the many the few must go. Perhaps we might refine this somehow into asserting that at least one objective moral might be that of maximizing the well-being of a conscious creature. A sort of maximizing of empathy and compassion. Of course evil can then be said to be lack of same.

    Eventually we must conclude, if all things go well and education of our gods gravestonechildren continues, god will soon be gone. If civilization is to continue then there must be an establishment of an objective morality. I have heard it said that our laws are objective. Yet, so many flout the laws. There has to be a seed planted to replace the deceptive seed of religion. Something that will stand just as well for the adult possessing skepticism  as for the child. Repetitious teaching cannot, I think, be avoided for the child. I don’t think we need feel guilty for instilling sound morals in our youth despite the fact that they cannot yet grasp the need. What is important is that the morals stand firm when faced by reason, which religious morality cannot. Let’s just be sure that the morals programmed into youth are sound and reasoned rather than manipulative.

     

  • The fact that the human species is a disgrace is not debatable. There are many facets to this issue. It is why the human species is a disgrace, not if.

    Of all the species on this world, humans are the most advanced intellectually. They can ponder, consider, decide a course of action. They have the ability to look at issues from the other side and to express empathy. When they hurt others, the others being other humans or other species, they know they are hurting them. If that hurt is carried out needlessly, then that hurt becomes malice. When malice is intentionally manifest it is a misuse of empathy. You are hurting someone intentionally because you know it hurts.

    It has been said that the failure to take action can be thought of as bad as actually harming someone. You see a man in the street. Dirty, disheveled, and hungry; it is obvious he has been there for a while. His reasons for being there are irrelevant. The fact that he is there means that society has failed him. The much vaunted human capacity for empathy has either failed or people that look upon this man are satisfied that he is in such horrible conditions. They know he is in bad straights and parade their own “well-off” state as evidence that they are superior. A misuse of empathetic power, I posture.

    The human species, because it had the capacity to understand the  state of fellow humans was able to act together and survive against physically superior foes. It was this quality of empathy that provided the glue that held us together. The individual human was no match for the saber tooth, the wolves, and other hosts of forces capable of destroying him.

    Our empathy has failed us much. It has been used as a means to determine how to harm, too often. Human failures include rigid religions, barbaric laws, war, violence, starvation, and arrogance. The list of failures is much longer and the length of this list grows each time something that could have provided positive improvement is turned instead to some harmful and destructive course.

    How could a caring human species carry out atrocities culminating in the deaths of thousands, if not millions? Just how did a bomb manage to be produced that could annihilate an entire city? Such a force was meant for better use. It was predicted that this force would provide electricity so cheap that it need not be metered. What happened? Was it greed? Was it miscalculation? Was it beyond our grasp?

    When the bomb was first proposed it was conjectured by some that it would ignite the atmosphere and end this world. The fools went ahead anyway. The struggle for the doomsday machine was relentless. The conjectured ignition proved inaccurate and led to the desire for even more powerful explosive force. The race went on to such a level that when all was said and done, all existence was in peril.

    The first world war was to end all wars. Then came WWII, surely it would be the last. Numerous wars have raged since and no end is in sight. Death and destruction is rampant everywhere. So many factions no way to diplomatically sway those determined to enforce their own perspective upon all other peoples. Turmoil.

    Justification enough for the eventual rise of misanthropes like myself I should say. More later…

     

     

     

  • How does one stop the unstoppable? Worse than a leaky ceiling, how Do you stop something that has the mind to thwart you?

    I have contemplated this before: The unstoppable juggernaut that isJuggernaut the human population bomb. It carries so many ills for humankind. The fact that our doom may occur due to it makes us seem so much like bacteria undergoing unchecked growth, or a virus, multiplying and destroying its host.

    Unfortunately, it is not just our own existence that is imperiled. There are numerous species that we have destroyed and are destroying. Extinctions are occurring most rapid. Everyone cries out that something must be done. They see the end result approaching. But cries do nothing to abate the rapidity of human population growth. Everyone proceeds with business as usual, not realizing that business as usual is the problem.

    The best scenario would be for humankind to refrain and produce large familyonly replacements. Religious folk will have nothing to do with that insisting instead that their god has commanded them to go forth and multiply. Shunning contraceptives and other means to limit families, these ignorant folk make large families… many of which the public at large must provide support. Support by subsidies direct or tax abatements indirect, these families cannot subsist without it.

    Meanwhile, the aforementioned species decline in numbers, some beyond retrieval. In the end the best hope for many remain the Zoological gardens present in many large cities. These same zoos, as they are called, scorned by many naturalists, are like sanctuaries. The naturalists think all these wild animals should remain wild, ingorilla hand the wild, not realizing that consigns many to extinction. Year after year we hear of Gorillas being poached, their hands removed. Elephants treacherously downed, their ivory tusks cruelly hacked away. Large cats taken, for trophy, for wasteful sport, some for their genitalia thought aphrodisiac in quality. Sorry folks, we aren’t growing any more wild out there. Encroachment seems inevitable everywhere. By everywhere, we have to admit, that means our planet’s oceans too. Species there suffer as fishing goes unabated. Large trawlers with enormous nets engulfing entire schools of fish. Their absence not only affects those of its kind but many others that depend upon their presence. Even here, the need for preserving at least some representatives in aquariums is seen necessary and unavoidable.

    Although the entertainment zoological gardenavailable in Zoological Gardens is a plus, to bring the experience of what was, to an ignorant public… that is not the reason I support the zoo. I support the zoo because it may be the last refuge for many species. Without a doubt, this is not a solution. At most it will help many species linger just a short while longer. In the wild I see no hope for them. This is because of human nature. No one is of one mind. One human wants a new home there, in the woods. another wants the woods preserved. At this point I only see the first human winning out. New building in wild areas must be banned. If you want to have a forest that is how it must be. We can’t keep hacking away even a little year after year without at some point destroying it all. The population growth must be stopped, indeed, a little less population is what is needed.

    Is anyone ever going to listen?

  • Whenever you posit that humanity is in trouble because the number of normal people wholiberal scumbag pull the load of society is diminished there is always that excessively liberal person that crawls out of the woodwork and exclaims “What is normal?” 

    Although it would be easy for me to list those people whom I think are abnormal and dangerous to society, there will always be those who think so and so should not be on that list, or that they themselves should be thought of as normal… when it is obvious they are not.

    In my opinion, the nuclear family, that is, a family group that consists only of father, mother, nuclear family 2and children, is normal. Any family structured any other way is not normal. You can’t have two fathers and children, or two mothers and children and be designated normal. You just can’t. Protest all you want, you just can’t.

    The nuclear family has been the strength of the United States. This was the foundation of our nation. Our nation American flaghas lost strength and world prestige in direct proportion to the deterioration of the nuclear family. When that proportion of the population that is traditional nuclear family declines below a critical level, and I do not pretend to know what that level is, the nation will fall. Structure, in manufacturing, in civil society, will crumble and fall into disarray… chaos and misery will follow. The only reason we remain today is that there are still enough traditional families teaching their children in the right way to go.

    You see evidence all around you of the increasing decay of society. An increased desire and druggie cartoonan increased use of “recreational” drugs. More interest in the dark areas of humanity like pornography, loose sex, and perversions. More and more people who depend upon public handouts rather than a day’s work.

    You see men and women no longer sure of who they are, so they try to be transvestites_05something they are not. Men try to transform themselves into women, women, into men. It is a stomach turning thing to behold. Yet, the moment you cry out against it there are those people, already influenced by it, that staunchly stand up and shout “who the hell are you to tell us how we have to be”, so the acceleration into decadence continues.

    I am an atheist. I have not dispensed with morality. My morality was here demonlong before my excursions into Christianity. My morals remain now, even after my discarding of faith. My simple hope now is this, and perhaps it is a greedy hope, and that is, that civilization lasts at least long enough so that I will live to old age and die before society becomes so sickening that even a demon would convulse upon seeing it.

  • So, you are sitting there… you know that so and so is a violation of the scratching-headConstitution of the United States, but… how is this violation going to be corrected? You look around in your apartment. Nope, no bags of money lying about. You check your most recent statement from the bank. Nope, just barely enough to get by till your next paycheck. There you sit, aware of a blatant constitutional violation, but you are broke.

    You must sue. To correct a malady, an infraction, an error, you must sue. Money blowingYou, have to hire a lawyer, you, must come up with the cash. Why… if you didn’t know better you would think that our judicial system was set up solely for the rich.

    This is no doubt not the biggest flaw in the American system, but it’s a big one. Not only is your health dependent on how much money you have, but so is justice. Rich manAs I recall, the rich have that money thing cornered.

    The rich can buy the best lawyer, or at least the best performing, which is what seems to matter. Justice, after all, should be cut and dried, but many a slick lawyer has proven, it isn’t.

    Oh, and the juries, the juries that listen to all this stuff. Supposedly representing myriad perspectives, it’s those perspectives that sometimes can be utilized by a slick lawyer to bring a case to a conclusion a distinct distance from anyplace called justice. Even if the lawyer doesn’t play to those views, the outcome of the case lawyer-no-ethicscan be flawed due to them. Cut and dried, right or wrong, legal or illegal, doesn’t really have a chance here either. A jury of your peers… really quite impossible. Such peers, one might think, would also skew the case and render you a positive outcome that wasn’t deserved. I wonder how many juries have been bribed?

    Shouldn’t justice be free? Shouldn’t the common man be able to point at the Constitution and demand a wrong be righted? Instead, what matters, is who has the most cash to spend.

    What if Mrs. McCollum did not receive financial backing for her quest in 1948? Would we all now be kneeling and praying in our schools? She won, but what if…

  • The boogeyman, that nasty creature lurking under your bed, in your closet, or forever in the recesses of your mind. Something out to get you. People conspiring to put an end to your existence by one means or another. Natureboogeyman itself rearing up as if somehow endowed with intelligence, a malevolent presence bent on your demise.

    Conspiracy nuts abound. Never satisfied with the status quo, these people are constantly at work developing new fears, new worries, to make you afraid, very afraid. From big business to big government to the extraterrestrial, there are entities out to eliminate your existence or enslave your mind and body.

    Unable to accept that Islamic terrorists were capable of bringing down two buildings in New York using gigantic airliners these conspiracy inventors, fabricators, would rather believe, and have you do likewise, that it was all a911 government plot. That men lurking within the government decided it was time to kill 3000 Americans just to persuade us Islam was out to get us. Rather than actually believe that terrorists, under the cloak of Islam, really were out to get us, they would have us believe it is the government, our very own, plotting against McCarthyus. 

    This conspiracy is just the latest one. Throughout time there have been people pointing fingers in the dark at boogeymen. There have always been individuals who create undue fear through lies. The McCarthy era should have taught us to be more careful before we point the bandwagonfinger. People never learn. For each new bandwagon of alarm there are many boarders. No one, it seems, has developed the habit of stepping back and saying “Now, hold on a second.”

     

  • TrollHow does one handle a troll? (In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtrl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion)

    I have been, on occasion, accused of being a troll. I do not endeavor to be a troll. It is simply my tightly held opinions on some matters which may seem caustic to some which may be the source of such misidentifications. This possibility is irrelevant. The purpose of this post is an exploration in how to refrain from, perhaps even frustrate a troll. button

    A troll, in my opinion, is simply a modern label given to an old entity: “button-pusher”. A button pusher is someone who says or does things in an effort to elicit a reaction. A button pusher is a sort of emotional bully. It is nearly impossible to have an intelligent conversation in the presence of such people.

    The best way to thwart a troll, in my opinion, is not to react in an emotional way to such trolls. React as if you are an unemotional machine. Let them rant and rave if they will, but do not ride the wave with them. If all else fails, or if you simply tire of the conversation, just leave it.

  • (Verbatim- sources noted)

     

    by Marc E. Angelucci and Glenn Sacks
    September 18, 2004
    NewsWithViews.com

     

    Despite its many painful and unseemly aspects, the Kobe Bryant rape case and the media storm surrounding it have drawn attention to a severely neglected problem: false rape accusations.

    In her recent Daily Journal column, high profile feminist professor Wendy Murphy dismisses the problem of false accusations as an “ugly myth,” and calls for “boiling rage” activism to address what she perceives as the anti-woman bias of the criminal justice system. Like many victims’ advocates, Murphy cannot seem to fathom the possibility that Bryant could be innocent. However, research shows that false allegations of rape are frighteningly common.

    According to a nine-year study conducted by former Purdue sociologist Eugene J. Kanin, in over 40 percent of the cases reviewed, the complainants eventually admitted that no rape had occurred (Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994). Kanin also studied rape allegations in two large Midwestern universities and found that 50 percent of the allegations were recanted by the accuser.

    Kanin found that most of the false accusers were motivated by a need for an alibi or a desire for revenge. Kanin was once well known and lauded by the feminist movement for his groundbreaking research on male sexual aggression. His studies on false rape accusations, however, received very little attention.

    Kanin’s findings are hardly unique. In 1985 the Air Force conducted a study of 556 rape accusations. Over one quarter of the accusers admitted, either just before they took a lie detector test of after they had failed it, that no rape occurred. A further investigation by independent reviewers found that 60 percent of the original rape allegations were false.

    The most common reasons the women gave for falsely accusing rape were “spite or revenge,” and to compensate for feelings of guilt or shame (Forensic Science Digest, vol. 11. no. 4, December 1985).

    A Washington Post investigation of rape reports in seven Virginia and Maryland counties in 1990 and 1991 found that nearly one in four were unfounded. When contacted by the Post, many of the alleged victims admitted that they had lied.

    It is true, of course, that not every accuser who recants had accused falsely. But it is also true that some who do not recant were not telling the truth.

    According to a 1996 Department of Justice Report, of the roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases analyzed with DNA evidence over the previous seven years, 2,000 excluded the primary suspect, and another 2,000 were inconclusive. The report notes that these figures mirror an informal National Institute of Justice survey of private laboratories, and suggests that there exists “some strong, underlying systemic problems that generate erroneous accusations and convictions.”

    That false allegations are a major problem has been confirmed by several prominent prosecutors, including Linda Fairstein, who heads the New York County District Attorney’s Sex Crimes Unit. Fairstein, the author of Sexual Violence: Our War Against Rape, says, “there are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen.”

    Craig Silverman, a former Colorado prosecutor known for his zealous prosecution of rapists during his 16-year career, says that false rape accusations occur with “scary frequency.” As a regular commentator on the Bryant trial for Denver’s ABC affiliate, Silverman noted that “any honest veteran sex assault investigator will tell you that rape is one of the most falsely reported crimes.” According to Silverman, a Denver sex-assault unit commander estimates that nearly half of all reported rape claims are false.

    The media has largely ignored these studies and experts and has instead promoted the notion that only 2% of rape allegations are false. This figure was made famous by feminist Susan Brownmiller in her 1975 book Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape. Brownmiller was relaying the alleged comments of a New York judge concerning the rate of false rape accusations in a New York City police precinct in 1974.

    A 1997 Columbia Journalism Review analysis of rape statistics noted that the 2% statistic is often falsely attributed to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and has no clear and credible study to support it. The FBI’s statistic for “unfounded” rape accusations is 9%, but this definition only includes cases where the accuser recants or the evidence contradicts her story. Instances where the case is dismissed for lack of evidence are not included in the “unfounded” category. Brownmiller’s credibility can be assessed by her assertion in Against Our Will that rape is “nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.”

    Murphy also contends that the criminal justice system is stacked against women, and that the law reform initiatives promoted during the past three decades have “failed to make a bit of difference in the justice system’s handling of rape cases.” In reality, feminist advocacy and the now ubiquitous rape-shield laws have made an enormous difference in the way the system treats rape cases.

    Some of these changes have been fair, and have led to greater protections for rape victims. However, others have made it more difficult for men to defend themselves, with at times horrifying consequences for the accused.

    For example, in December, the Arkansas Supreme Court denied an appeal by Ralph Taylor, who is serving a 13-year sentence for rape. The court held that evidence of the victim’s alleged prior false allegations of rape was inadmissible because it was considered sexual conduct within the meaning of the state’s rape shield statute. In that case, the defense proffered the testimony of two friends of the alleged victim, both of whom claimed that she had previously falsely accused another man of raping her. The court added that admitting such evidence could “inflame the jury.”

    In her book Ceasefire: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality, Boston Globe columnist Cathy Young details numerous questionable rulings in which potentially innocent men were prevented from properly defending themselves by the rape shield laws which Murphy endorses.

    One of these cases concerns an 18 year-old Wisconsin boy named Charles Steadman, who in 1993 was sentenced to eight years in prison for allegedly raping an older woman. Steadman was prohibited from revealing that his accuser was currently facing criminal charges of having sex with minors, and thus had an excellent reason to claim that the sex with Steadman was not consensual. Such evidence was deemed related to his accuser’s sexual history and thus inadmissible.

    In 1997, sportscaster Marv Albert was accused of assault and battery during a sexual encounter with a woman with whom he had had a 10-year sexual relationship. Albert sought to introduce evidence that his accuser, who had been in a mental hospital six weeks before the alleged assault, had previously made false accusations against men who had left her, as Albert, who was engaged to be married, was planning to do. Albert’s offer of proof was denied, compromising his ability to defend himself. Facing a possible life sentence, he chose to plead guilty to misdemeanor assault.

    Murphy’s dogged attacks on Ruckriegle as a veritable “advocate for the accused” are also without foundation. Far from being a black robed patriarch in league with the defendant, Ruckriegle’s rulings were reasonable and, if anything, minimalist. It is not the rulings but the reaction to them by victims’ advocates and the media which are worrisome.

    For example, Ruckriegle granted a defense motion that Bryant’s accuser would not be referred to as “the victim” in court. Such labeling, as opposed to “alleged victim” or “accuser,” undermines the presumption of innocence. However, this motion was hotly contested by both the prosecution and by victims’ rights organizations, which filed amicus briefs and complained that Ruckriegle’s decision created an anti-woman double-standard.

    Ruckriegle also allowed Bryant to introduce evidence that his accuser had had other sexual encounters in the 72 hours before her medical examination for the alleged assault. Bryant’s defense team contended that the microscopic vaginal injuries the prosecution claimed were suffered in the alleged assault could instead have been the product of various consensual sexual encounters.

    Media commentators labeled the 72 hour decision a “bombshell for prosecutors” that “threatens all women,” and likened Ruckriegle to a man who has “tiptoed into a minefield.”

    Murphy is correct that rape is a horrible crime. But false accusations of rape are every bit as horrible. They are a form of psychological rape that can emotionally, socially, and economically destroy a person even if there is no conviction, especially for those of less fame and fortune than Bryant. The stigma attaches to the falsely accused for life. Few believe them and few care. Prosecutors systematically refuse to prosecute the perpetrators. And victims’ advocates like Murphy refuse to see falsely accused men as victims, and instead work to minimize and conceal the problem.

    (http://www.newswithviews.com/Sacks/glenn12.htm)

  • I once wondered about why older people turned inside themselves and dwelt for long periods on the past. They would sit and reminisce about memories that originated decades before, sometimes while staring out a window, other times amongst their peers.  Now that I have reached what many think as being older I believe I am gaining a glimpse as to why elders think so.

    A person gains their personality, their bearings in life, fairly early on. You learn to cope with conditions that prevail. You acquire skills that allow you to steer your way through life. You become comfortable. An individual can continue steering this course, using the same coordinates, if you will, for a few decades. Then, unnoticeably at first, what can be called the ‘terrain’ of life slowly alters. Skills that served well become less able to cope with the prevailing terrain. Not only that, but the young begin to compete with your perceptions of what should be, bringing ideas of their own. They reject you, resent your presence, try to push you out of the way.

    Thankfully there is a way to proceed, though you must also step out of the way, and that is to realize that the only permanent thing in this life is change. Keeping abreast with changes may help you understand what is transpiring. Accepting those changes is irrelevant as regardless of your understanding you will be discarded. All the young see you as now is the old codger sitting, looking out the window.

    The older generation, comfortable with what they have found works, shakes their collective heads at the young. The younger generation thinks they know it all. Only time will tell whether the young are headed for a crash. At this point all grandpa and grandma can see is a disaster brewing. When the foundation upon which society has been built and maintained is frowned upon by the young how can the senior see anything but calamity approaching?

    The family has sustained our nation. Now this family is under constant attack. The government with their many handouts has made it easy for a woman to dispose of her partner, her husband, and mother alone. Now from an early age a female is taught that she must empower herself, become strong, totally independent. What need does she have for a man? He becomes a luxury. If she wants him he can stay, at least a little while. When ‘want’, a transient quantity, begins to flag, out he goes with the next trash pickup.

    With a society that denigrates masculinity, insults males from boyhood on, men no longer aspire to be great. Women, upon reaching mid-life, wail sadly, wondering where have all the good men gone… not realizing they themselves are responsible for the destruction about which they moan.

    The wall of the cliff rises ahead. The rails run directly there. The speed of the train seems unstoppable. The brakes will melt anyway. A catastrophe is nigh.

  • Toleration. To what extent should toleration be applied. Does toleration end as those you are tolerating are leading you to your execution? Shouldn’t your toleration have ended a wee bit before you couldn’t do anything about it?

    Many Jews tolerated the German Nazis far too long and went beyond the point where anything could be done about them. It drew in the whole world.

    How far should toleration go? If you hear a crowd of people shouting derogatory things about an ethnic group, should you say something in protest? If you hear of plans for an attack upon a group of people should you turn a deaf ear and remark “They are not coming for me.” If you know there are large stashes of military weapons and groups in training for a future war upon your people, and they do this in your very country, do you just wait until they make a move? Is that the price of freedom, to ignore the signs of impending doom? A little steeper than you imagined, I think.

    There is a peoples that moves into countries and bides its time as it breeds and grows. When it reaches a certain mass it demands all those about them to obey strict edicts and to submit or die. Great Britain, it has been suggested, is already being cut down at the knees and has given in on many points. Many other countries are being invaded by these patience plotters. Patience has always been their ally. Like a slow poison they spread. Strangling dissent, free speech, and common sense.

    To the liberal mind there is no end to toleration. Atheists who boast of rationality seem to think that they can negotiate with these murderers of humanity. Because the people grow alarmed when they are told that they must submit or die, they are labeled haters, doing an injustice. They remark that the individual is not to blame, it is the religion that is to blame. Yet, without the individual, collected with others in groups, there would be no religion. Be civil with those that hate you, they exclaim, be nice and they won’t harm you. They fail to take into account that the person has been compromised by the religion and is no longer capable of rational thought. Do your best to make a point if you will, but it is wasted upon those whose ears only listen to their Imam and hear you not.