Huma Abedin = Radical Islam = Radical Christianity

Today I decided to address a trending topic on Facebook to show the world that I’m paying attention to what’s important. 🙂

A NY Post article that exposes Hillary Clinton as someone who is going to bring the

Huma Abedin

dangers of Islam into the white house.  Now how does the article do this?  By pointing out that her possible future chief of staff and campaign aide Human Abedin has ties to radical Islam because she was an assistant editor for the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, and because her mother is still editor-in-chief of that publication. The NY Post claims is a radical Islamic publication, because of the content of what it publishes and because the journal was founded by the Muslim World League and then refers to a radical article posted in the journal from 1996 (yes 1996) by one of the top members in that organization.

This radical article says all sorts of nasty Muslim things that I guess imply that should Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin be in the Whitehouse, radical Islamic values will be forced onto the American People.

The article represents all sorts of fun stuff for conspiracy theorists and people who love to play the game 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon.  Forget the fact that the journal is an academic one, and they misunderstand what an editor actually does.  Also let’s ignore the fact that an important part of every academic field is discord, debate, and even in opinion.  Editors don’t usually censor opinion provided that it is clear that it is opinion, and would rather leave it up for debate in the community. The NY Post also says that this radical article destroys Hillary Clinton’s progressive feminist views because this article is very anti-feminist.  So even if this unconstitutional forcing of Sharia Law on everybody were to come to pass in the post apocalyptic vision that is being painted of  a Clinton presidency, it all rests on the idea that this Journal actually produces material that represents radical Islam, which the NY Post doesn’t really go to prove other than quoting passages from this 1996 article.  So therefore I decided to look at this article which I was able to find through my University Library.  I couldn’t find it free on-line, but I will quote passages here and reference it at the end of this article. So let’s look at what the NY Post says about this article:

Headlined “Women’s Rights Are Islamic Rights,” a 1996 article argues that single moms, working moms and gay couples with children should not be recognized as families. It also states that more revealing dress ushered in by women’s liberation “directly translates into unwanted results of sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility and indirectly promote violence against women.” In other words, sexually liberated women are just asking to be raped.

“A conjugal family established through a marriage contract between a man and a woman, and extended through procreation is the only definition of family a Muslim can accept,” the author, a Saudi official with the Muslim World League, asserted, while warning of “the dangers of alternative lifestyles.” (Abedin’s journal was founded and funded by the former head of the Muslim World League.)

“Pushing [mothers] out into the open labor market is a clear demonstration of a lack of respect of womanhood and motherhood,” it added.

The NY Post goes on to quote plenty of opinions by Huma Abedin’s mother such as:

““Among all systems of belief, Islam goes the farthest in restoring equality across gender,” she claimed. “Acknowledging the very central role women play in procreation, child-raising and homemaking, Islam places the economic responsibility of supporting the family primarily on the male members.”

Now I was not able to find her mother’s 31 page treatise report in the NY Post because they did not name that article, but given the selective quoting they did for the first article they talk about, I have no doubt there is a much large message that was being discussed than what they are trying to portray.

Let’s also remember the context.  American progressive values are not going to transform Islam instantly.  If Islam is going to become more moderate and enlightened such things happen in stages.  So despite some disturbing things that are quoted out of context some of views are going to remain conservative and not very progressive at all.  Also as to why the daughter, who clearly has a career and has entered the labor market, would have the same views as her mother is not clear either.  Ronald Reagan has a son who is an outspoken atheist.

To quote some of the article entitled “Women’s Rights are Islamic Rights” here are some other quotes which are quote progressive:

“We need not only to provide more opportunities for women but we need to increase the involvement and responsibilities of men in family life. We should recall here that the Cairo Conference resoundingly endorsed the principle that the full participation and partnership of both men and women, including shared responsibilities for the care and nurturing of children and maintenance of household is essential. The burden of poverty on woman can be lightened not just by placing greater economic responsibilities on them that will ensue from their increased participation in the economic sector. Evidence indicates that this burden is intensified when men do not discharge their obligations towards their families.”

This is actually quite progressive as it is a call to men to be more active in family life and sharing responsibilities in the home.  This point also appears before the quote about pushing women out into the labor market.  Without men taking more of a responsibility in domestic duties this does put additional stress and strain on women.  Hell we have that problem here.  Our society proves that point.  There are many articles by feminist who talk about this very thing.  The article also says:

“…we feel that the declared objectives of equality, development and peace can be achieved only by recognizing the inherent and inalienable dignity of women, by respecting the fundamental values and universal norms prevalent within each society and by accepting the importance of women’s presence and participation in all aspects of social life.”


The Islamic package of women’s rights is, therefore, tailored to women’s specific needs, under which women enjoy all the basic rights that men are entitled to as members of the human race, plus additional privileges as mothers, wives, sisters and women. Islamic women’s rights recognize women’s specific needs and honor their special role in the family and society with a view to maintaining harmony and peace in society.

Radical indeed.

But look I’m not saying that there aren’t some issues with the Islamic view of women’s rights and I would like to see Islam be even more radical when it comes to women’s rights and become radically progressive, but that isn’t going to happen overnight.  However what caught my eyes is how what is considered radically dangerous Islamic views by the author are so amazingly similar to the extreme views of the conservative Christian right.

  • No family structure is valid but that of one man and one woman (in the U.S. this is referred to as traditional marriage)
  • alternative lifestyles are harmful to children and therefore society
  • A woman’s place is in the home to raise children.  Much like he article they quote nothing forbids a woman working outside the home as long as she is doing her wifely and family duties first.
  • Accusing the female victim for being to blame for the abuse.  For example here, and here.
  • Laying blame on women for their provocative clothing and the sexual violence enacted upon them.

Now I’m not saying that all these views represent mainstream Christianity today, but they were certainly more prevalent in 1996 and the fact that a conservative paper like the NY Post would criticize Hillary Clinton’s aide for views that are espoused by radical elements in the U.S. which you never see right leaning publications criticizing seemed very hypocritical.  But that’s par for the course for fundamental Christian conservatives in the U.S.


The article fails to prove that Huma Abedin has any radical Islamic views, or even held them at one time.  It fails to recognize that the article in question was an exerpt by an address to the U.N. not some biased academic research and was the opinion of the speaker.  It’s pure fear mongering.  Let’s worry about the radically conservative views against women by our current group of citizens before we worry about such an influence from a different religion. A fundamentalist Christian recently told me that if I didn’t like America I could go to the middle east with my liberal ways.  I think that person might be confused on who should move.

  • Women’s rights are Islamic rights. By: Ali, Ahmad Mohammad, Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 13602004, Jul96, Vol. 16, Issue 2

51 thoughts on “Huma Abedin = Radical Islam = Radical Christianity

  1. Boom.

    From one of the articles you posted:

    “In June 2007, professor of Christian theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Bruce Ware told a Texas church that women often bring abuse on themselves by refusing to submit.”

    The Southern Baptist Convention (evangelical) is the 2nd largest Christian denomination in the U.S. While mainline Christianity is on the decline in America, evangelical Christianity is on the rise. A religious landscape study conducted by the Pew Research Center showed that evangelical Christian is the nation’s largest religious group.

    This should cause us all to take pause. The Bible Belt has the highest concentration of evangelicals, the worst quality of life, and has been determined to be the worst region of the country to live according to sociologists and a report by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

    I read the dialog between you and the Christian evangelical, and it seemed apparent to me that he was blinded to the fact that his own beliefs mirrored those he was condemning.

    An excellent, educational and thought-provoking post. Thank you!

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Thank you Victoria. The cognitive dissonance between how one fundamentalist in a judeo-christian religion views another is amazing. It’s frightening to me that fundamentalist Christians spend so much time accusing democrats of being connected to extremism especially in relation to Islam (Obama’s a secret Muslim!) when democrats tend to be fighting religious extremism in any form. Their cries of Christian persecution fail to recognize that we are trying to keep at bay the same religious extremism and persecution that is prevalent in many countries that have no separation of church and state and extremism more rampant.

      Liked by 2 people

    1. Scary times indeed. Thanks Hariod for now letting me know that the possibility of a Trump presidency looms even closer! Why the DNC didn’t support Sanders over Clinton is beyond me. He was clean as a whistle…the worst they could say about him was that he is socialist…which is such an overused and incorrectly used word now that it has actually made the word less fearful.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Bernie wouldn’t play ball with the corporate sponsors – the people who fund Hillary and the party, who get to influence legislation, and who can’t be opposed as they have industrial facilities strategically dispersed so that in any state they operate in, the legislature can’t move against them for threat of redundancies in reprisal. Chris Hedges is good on all this sort of thing. As an outsider Brit and a Socialist myself, I like Jill Stein, who’s free of all that corporate control, but hasn’t the funds to run the necessary campaign.

        Liked by 3 people

        1. Agreed…she’s alright…but she does have a lot of scattered brain pseudo-scientific ideas like keeping children away from the internet seems to be trying to appeal to that extreme left that is anti-GMO and anti-Vaxx, etc. But that’s not egregious compared to some of the others. Bernie was able to raise quite a bit of money though, and I think a lot more money would have poured in had he been the nominee. The Republicans wouldn’t have had enough ammo…but yes ultimately big business controls the government and Hillary is just a far better option. Ugh. I’m Canadian so I think we have fairly similar views then politically!

          Liked by 3 people

          1. Thanks for this Swarn. All I can find of her on this business of kids and the internet is a hustings appearance at which she responds to a question about the one-to-one usage of computers in school classrooms. Stein responds by comparing this to kids at home watching TV for prolonged periods, and so not interacting, not being good for their cognitive and social development. A reasonable inference? She goes on to say the introduction of computers in schools in a ‘corporate ruse’, seemingly alluding to how Google’s business model is concealed within Google Apps for Education (GAFE), and Apple’s long-standing marketing in education. She goes on to respond on Wi-Fi, saying research on its effects upon health is deficient in the US compared to Europe, where (she says) better precautions exist around wireless usage in schools. She suggests that current lax US legislation allows corporates to use consumers – here children – as guinea pigs for product testing. That sounds about right to me, as it’s what occurs in Europe, and also what’s happened historically. She says public trust in US regulatory agencies is evaporating, and cites Obama’s appointment of a Monsanto VP to the role of assistant director at the FDA. Given this existing paradigm, and given her views on the primacy of interaction for kids, she says that screens should be kept out of the classroom, and that Wi-Fi could be hazardous to their health. It would seem that this has been reported in some sections of the media that she thinks the internet is bad and that Wi-Fi fries children’s brains. Have I missed something silly she’s said on this subject? It sounds as though I must have done from what you say.


            Liked by 2 people

            1. Maybe you haven’t…perhaps I haven’t researched her as well as I should and just read some articles that were biased. But in some interviews I watched from her she does seem to give some vague answers that seemed geared towards garnering support from what I would call the fringe elements on the far left. I guess politicians will be politicians. I would still vote for her if I felt that she had any chance of winning, but our two party system here is what it is. In order to have a system of more than 3 parties, there has to be a presence at the local and state level to have a realistic chance of influencing things federally. I don’t believe a party can gain traction from the top down. The established parties here are ruthless at keeping 3rd parties out of it so the only way to gain popular support is to have a base that knows your views are superior and that you can get things done and that’s done at the lower political echelons first. Bernie to me was the much better choice because although he served as an independent he still had some political clout and obviously a long history in Washington D.C. Jill Stein is an outsider and the risks of losing the Whitehouse to the REpublicans and Trump in a push for Stein to me seems an unacceptable risk. Both Stein and Sanders pay attention to science and that’s important to me. Hillary, pays attention to politics and in my opinion pays attention to science where it is politically popular. The Republicans pay no attentions to science. So that’s we have here. 😦

              Liked by 3 people

            2. All agreed, Swarn, with the exception of the tactical voting which leaves a bad taste in my mouth, somehow. I think we should vote with our conscience. I’ve heard so many bloggers and others say they’re holding their noses and voting for Hillary only so as to keep Trump out. It’s logical, but what if 50 million people are doing just that; isn’t it playing into the two-party system? On your other point, then Stein hopes to build from a power base of students and her policy of abolishing tuition fees. On potential third party influence, then see 1’10” thru 3’15” of the video below (with your permission). I guarantee you’ll enjoy it, knowing you. *winks*

              Liked by 3 people

            3. I have done a lot of soul searching and thought on the issue. The influence of third party candidates throughout much of a history, to me, shows more evidence to support my point in that they cause the other guy to win. It is even argued that Ralph Nader’s small percentage of the vote impacted the contested vote in Florida which eventually led to Florida going to George W. Bush and we all know how that went. Al Gore would have been a much better president and much more environmentally conscious. The only exception, as pointed out by the video is Abraham Lincoln. To me this is a bit deceiving, because it was still largely a two party system. The Republican Party incorporated many people from congress from a prior party so the GOP had presence in both the executive and legislative branch. This would not be the case for any of the 3rd party candidates since then. If the Green Party had candidates running for position in congress as well, I’d be full Green Party.

              I think they should be part of the debates and their ideas should get equal exposure because they would add to important political discussions, but until that happens I am in the position of trying to convinced 50 million other people to vote their conscience and vote for a Stein who it’s not even clear she would have any support in the legislative branch. So I do feel that voting for Hillary is voting my consciences. She has skeletons, but a lot of politicians do, and she also has a record of doing positive things for liberal causes. Weighing this against things like further damage to the environment, the erasing of the department of education, the environmental protection agency, the overturning of marriage equality for gays, the potential overturning of abortion rights for women, decreased equality for minorities, loss of National Parks and public lands to privatization, and millions of Americans losing their health care coverage…and this is not just Trump but the entire Republican Party platform…well for me I do feel I am voting my conscience. So unless someone can give me the magic power to convince 50 million people, I don’t think it’s the right thing to do vote for the candidate that I like the best simply because, as an educated (slightly tanned) male, I have the privileges of avoiding many of the harm of Republican control of government.

              Liked by 3 people

            4. I have done this in the past with disastrous results. This country is locked into a 2-party system with what used to be the Electoral College and is now Superdelegates. It’s rigged, certainly. So what good is voting, except that we did elect Obama, which I am particularly proud of, having advocated for civil rights from way back.

              There is a fringe movement that would abolish Superdelegates and give more power to the people via the popular vote, but man, there are powers that are running this machine that are frightening to the likes of me. I would have loved Sanders – he would have broken the system down – but it just wasn’t going to be allowed to happen. I hope I live to see the day when it is.

              Liked by 2 people

            5. All very fair and legitimate comment, Swarn, and I hope you didn’t think I was being pointed in my reference to voting with one’s conscience? Gaming the system is perhaps a necessary evil, although as I said, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth that I’m coerced into supporting a candidate whose principles (Neoliberalism) and agenda (sustaining it and feeding off it) I oppose. That’s why I support Corbyn over here, even though he’s really only very little chance of ever becoming the nation’s leader. I want to be part of a social movement that rejects the status quo of the two-party system, not simply choose the lesser of two evils. Listen, I entirely respect your position, Swarn, and we are on the same side as far as our political views go; it’s just me and my obstinacy over this one point. I’m normally heavily pragmatic, but here, idealistic. 🙂

              Liked by 3 people

            6. No offense taken. I don’t abuse anybody voting third party regardless of my position in this election as long as they feel they are well researched on the issues that’s all I care about. And this is no easy decision for me either as I was supporting Sanders pretty hard for the reasons you mention and in the last couple of elections I would probably supporting a 3rd party more strongly. The Republicans despite losing the presidency twice in a row… Have doubled down on crazy rather than moderate their views on the issues. Trump is at the helm and the republican party platform is the most conservative it has been. I can’t ignore that factor. I think also that by making sure Clinton gets elected I am serving Bernie the best because he got a lot of young people excited about politics and moved the conversation to the actual left instead of the “left in relation to the extreme right”. Republican control would, I feel make the next political revolution one that just tries to get back to center. But yes it does leave a dirty taste in the mouth. 😦

              Liked by 4 people

          2. I hate being forced to elect the lesser of two evils. But I’ll vote for duplicitous over insane. It’s a moot point to vote for Stein anyway, as it’s basically throwing one’s vote away. We need to break free of a 2-party system, but don’t expect it anytime soon.

            Liked by 2 people

            1. “We don’t have to persuade people, we don’t have to change people’s minds. All we have to do is flick that switch in our own minds from powerlessness to powerfulness. The minute we do that, the future is in our hands.”

              – Jill Stein

              Liked by 2 people

            2. Hariod, you wrote: “I’m normally heavily pragmatic, but here, idealistic.”

              I was in a conversation with my dad recently, who was visiting from California. He’s a Republican, and plans on voting for Trump. This is an “educated” man who’s traveled the world. I watched my dad get indoctrinated by Fox News just like I witnessed with my ex-husband who literally turned into a different person when he became radicalized by the right. As we were discussing politics, my dad accused me of being idealistic.

              I said to him, “what was idealistic about the New Deal? You’re enjoying the benefits throughout your life, and now in your retirement years. If the new brand of Republicans have their way, your children and grand children won’t have these necessary social benefits. If it wasn’t for these benefits, I would have died.

              It still didn’t register with him. I’m rambling here, but my point is to say that the quote by Jean Stein doesn’t address indoctrination. People supporting Trump and the anti-social Republican platform believe they are flipping the switch, believing they are empowering themselves by supporting him. Our country was, for the most part, doing fairly well after the New Deal.

              If you will excuse the trite and sarcastic expression, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that if the government provides them with the necessary tools to get out of poverty, they will stimulate the economy, and many of the social ills that plague our country will be curtailed. Btw, I am a registered Independent, but I am definitely not voting 3rd party for reasons Swarn expounded on. Both parties need an overhaul, but the neo-Repulicans are incredibly dysfunctional and if given unfettered power, will do to the whole of the U.S. what it’s done to the South.

              Even Bernie Sanders knew it wouldn’t be wise to run on an Independent ticket.


              Liked by 4 people

            3. Thankyou so much Victoria, for taking note of a lone Brit here, and one seemingly on their own as regards the matter of tactical voting. We have the same problem here, with both Labour and the Conservatives devoid of any willingness to promote new ideas (like FDR & Stein’s New Deals), and clinging grimly to the hegemonic Neoliberalist paradigm that’s brought vast increases in inequality, wage stagnation for the lower paid (so much for trickle-down economics!), tax-payer bailouts for the banks, deregulation of the banks (Thatcherism & Reaganomics), ineffectual and excessive monetary policy that’s achieved only asset price inflation, and now the prospect of years of Japanese style stagflation or Secular Stagnation.

              In contrast, postwar Western growth can be seen to have been most dynamic between the end of the war and the early 70s, which was the era of Keynesianism and Welfare Capitalism, and during which the growth rate was twice as great as the Neoliberal period from 1980 to now. So I’m right with you on the point you make in your penultimate paragraph. The thing is, how are we ever going to shift away from a pernicious Neoliberalism if we only ever vote for parties that support it? Everyone here will agree the answer isn’t Trump’s anti-globalisation and Economic Nationalism – you’re still left with continuing to go down a road of what Chris Hedges terms ‘Inverted Totalitarianism’, or by other words, Corporate Despotism. At some point, the citizenry have to reject that. The longer we leave doing so, the uglier that rejection will get, in my view.

              Anyway, I totally see the logic of Americans voting for the lesser of two evils, and as I wouldn’t be the one who would have to live under the consequences of Trump in the White House (surely he’ll rename it?), then I should direct my own energies to the parallel state of affairs here in Britain. Thankyou once again for indulging the lone and contrarian Brit here so graciously, I appreciate it. 🙂

              Liked by 3 people

            4. Hariod, thanks so much for your reply. I really enjoy reading your comments on relevant subjects. They are always meaty.

              With so much at stake, and the race being so close, I can’t help but question Stein’s wisdom in running at the 11 o’clock hour. As Swarn pointed out, there has been progress over the last 8 years, but there would have been much more progress had there not been so much dysfunction and deliberate sabotage from the right in Congress. Here are just a few of the hundreds of bills Senate Republicans have killed since President Obama took office:

              –Equal Pay for Women
              –Minimum wage increase
              –Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act
              –Bring Jobs Home Act – stop tax breaks for moving jobs and production facilities out of the country
              –Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act of 2011 – rehire 400,000 teachers, firefighters, paramedics and police officers.
              –Student loan reform – ease the crushing burden of student loan debt by at least allowing refinancing to lower interest rates
              –Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act
              –Extended unemployment benefits – for the long-term unemployed
              –Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) — let working people join unions
              –Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act – let public safety officers join unions
              –The Buffett rule – ensure millionaires pay a comparable tax rate to middle-class Americans
              –Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act
              –Discloser Act — requires corporations, super PACs, labor unions, and other groups to disclose donors who give in excess of $10,000 for political contributions
              –Benefits for Homeless Veterans — would have expanded benefits to homeless veterans and homeless veterans with children.
              –Immigration Reform
              –Killed all gun control bills

              Are you seeing a pattern here? The list goes on and on. Stein won’t win, but could very well be the catalyst that reverses most of the progressive progress that’s been accomplished in this country. This will likely fuel more Christian Right extremism.

              How the Christian Right Ended Up Transforming American Politics

              Liked by 1 person

            5. Thankyou Victoria, for your words and for the link, which I have now read, as I did the previous one from The Washington Post. And yes, I can see the pattern alright. It’s been well and consistently reported over here how Republicans have stymied Obama’s more progressive moves. Each of us must do as we see fit, I suppose, and wrestle with which of the heart or the head one opts to follow. It’s perhaps rather depressing that with around 60% of Americans seemingly currently wanting an alternative to the two major parties, so very few feel able to vote for one given the system as it is, and I do hope not to be appearing in any way critical of those who feel they cannot. Faced with the reality of a neo-fascist presidency, and were I a US citizen, then I should have to think very carefully and perhaps set aside my ideology as a result – understood.

              Liked by 2 people

            6. Hariod, I really do appreciate the fact that you took the time to read the articles, and for your empathy and understanding. ❤

              I actually replied to you a few days ago, or attempted to, but we got a hellacious thunderstorm in my neck of the woods, and lost power just seconds before I hit the "post comment" button.

              Liked by 1 person

            7. Thanks Victoria, and yes of course I read the links you so kindly provided. I can’t pretend to be up to speed with everything in American politics, far from it, and knew that your references and pointers for me would be perfectly sound. 🙂 All best wishes, Hariod. ❤

              Liked by 1 person

    1. Agreed. I’ve often been corrected when I’ve accused somebody who has expressed views against Islam as being racist, because then they’ll say it’s not a race…but what I see is the prejudice being exacted out against people of a particular skin color, or people who are wearing turbans thus it has turned into racism rather than a n opposition to a particular ideology. But if we were to discuss only the ideological tenets we might all of a sudden have to look at where those own tenets sit with any ideologies prevalent in our own country. Much easier to make it about race. *sigh*

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I can offer you some evidence to bolster your position in your next discussion 🙂

        You know how they talk about France (where I live) having the biggest Muslim population in Europe? Just check those figures- and how they got to them. They count Muslim as having come from (or having parents who come from) countries where Islam was the predominant religion. When you look closer at the figures you realize that of the many millions of “Muslims” who live in France only 36% describe themselves as observant believers and only 20% go regularly to mosque. The figures I found for the UK are similar (but from the 90’s), about 30% practice the religion. What does that tell you about our definition of Muslim?

        Liked by 3 people

        1. Well said, and that does bolster me for the next discussion as I did not know that about how they counted those statistics, but it does not startle me. And it’s also no surprise that Muslims who are 3rd and 4th generation are fairly westernized and secular at this point. And yet we still get people here who say that somehow 25,000 Syrians will force Sharia Law…a number of those Syrians are Christian too, but that discussion often gets ignored by the public who sees skin color.

          Liked by 2 people

            1. Agreed. I think more the issue with people like Harris and Coyne is that their intellectual opposition and concern is quite valuable to the discussion, but their lack of empathy is not helpful to any sort of actionable solution. Muslims are not going to suddenly become atheists and so without any sort of inclusive approach to Islamic belief and culture you aren’t going to get anywhere in creating a more moderate brand of Islam. Canada is a great example of how inclusiveness by Canada, has created some of the most outspoken Imams against the extremist violence perpetrated by Islamic terrorists.

              Liked by 1 person

            2. I agree. The fact that extremism can find it’s way to any ideology regardless of how peaceful it seems, tells one that the reasons are beyond the ideology itself and that does tend to elude people like Harris and Coyne.

              Liked by 1 person

  2. Great post Swarn.

    This is why I have said for years I despise all religions equally. Funny how they (religions) dislike each other yet at the same time are so alike in many ways. And all so damn sure they have all of the particulars correct, each and every sect has the one and only true path to jeebus! Or Allah, or any of the other 10,000 gods through history.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Great discussion provoking post, Swarn. Thank you. I love reading the comment thread, hearing the thoughts of those living outside the American bubble. It’s getting crazy out there. So thanks for a bit of levity and some informed discussion. Aloha.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. Great post. Check out my current and upcoming political and theological posts! Follow for follow. Share anything you like to increase the following and viewership. Thanks. I look forward to your future posts!


    1. Yeah it’s a real newspaper…but more akin to The Edmonton Sun. It’s not serious journalism by any means, but I just thought it was a worthwhile moment to point out the similar characteristics between radical Islam and the fundamental Christianity prevalent in the South here. Today on Facebook I posted how conservative thinking in Canada tends to be quite hypocritical. For instance such Canadians think that those immigrants we let in should have Canadian values. So conservative who self-identify as opposing abortions, feel we should not let in anybody who opposes abortions. It’s the same here in the U.S. The similarities between religious extremism in both Islam and Christianity are very similar.


      1. The hypocrisy is certainly glaring. Kellie Leitch, who is running for the Conservative leadership, was recently interviewed on The Current. She is the one who recently polled Conservatives asking them if they thought that immigrants should be screened for anti-Canadian values (she also apparently was the one who set up the Barbaric Cultural Practices hotline in the last election). She argued that immigrants should share Canadian values, naming off four or five, the two most important being tolerance and generosity. I found that extremely ironic since it would be very tolerant and generous to allow people who don’t share our values to immigrate. I yelled it at the radio, but she just ignored me. On top of that, her examples of the kind of people we should not let into the country were very extreme, people that treat women as property and believe in stoning, namely things that are already illegal.

        That being said, I wouldn’t paint all conservatives (or Conservatives) with the same brush, although there is a small cohort for whom mandatory logic classes would be beneficial.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Sure, not all conservatives are the same, but if the likes of Kellie Leitch are front runners to represent conservatives than I think we can at least say that we have a problem among the conservative field. In the U.S. these are pretty much all the people we had as choice for in the primaries for the Republican ticket. People with a high level of cognitive dissonance.

          Liked by 1 person


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s