Enlightenment Versus Submission


What is the concept of religion? Or more importantly, why is it?


Religion has become an all-encompassing system that functions in all essence like a corporation. The Vatican, for example, is an arms stockholder and a bank with great influence in the corporate community. Our modern representation religion has strayed far from its intended purpose…It no longer serves as a voice of reason or compassion, but detachment from the people that it serves. Corruption in any institution can only take hold, if organised elements within it act on delusional beliefs that do not benefit the greater whole. Although many religious scriptures are hardly embodiments of peace or provide more than a handful of useful principles, not all of them have been edited, suppressed or destroyed. Some still offer guidance toward understanding a higher power…an essence that existed prior to this multi-verse.

Above all else, religion is deep inner realisation. It is not a path that anyone can choose for you or a state that anyone can elevate you to…You alone hold the key. Religion is the embodiment of freedom. We cannot deny that, because we cannot move or live without the idea of freedom…or democratic rule for that matter. What makes religion so unscientific is that they continue to deny the power of the people in their aim to centralise it. In the absence of power, money and influence…Religion deals with the truths of the metaphysical world just as chemistry and the other natural sciences deal with the truths of the physical world.

“The ignorant work for their own profit, Arjuna; the wise work for the welfare of the world, without thought for themselves.” (Krishna, Bhagavad Gita)

In the words of Swami Vivekananda, all science has its particular methods, so has the science of religion. It has more methods also, because it has more material to work upon. The human mind is not homogeneous like the external world. According to the different nature, there must be different methods. No one form of religion will do for all. Each is a pearl on a string. We must be particular above all else to find individuality in each. No man is born to any religion; he has a religion in his own soul. Any system which seeks to destroy individuality is in the long run disastrous.

Therefore, it is our religious duty to protect and honour the beliefs of others, as long as they do not spread violence in its name. Islam, like any mental programming, has its inherent dangers. Any extreme religious doctrine that undermines the validity of other schools of thought creates fear, hostility and aggression. If each man chose his own ideal and stuck to it, all religious controversy would vanish… There would be no one to challenge, objectively investigate or even contemplate the metaphysical in all its diversity. All religion is based on the analysis of the spirit…It has no colour, creed or race, yet is has a qua-zillion faces.

However, any religion comes with intense self-sacrifice. Rules such, such as “Desire nothing for yourself.”, ‘Be compassionate.”, “Do all for others.” are essential in the search for inner peace, but they cannot help us in the fight for freedom. When unconstitutional, undemocratic forces surround and infiltrate society to submit others to their religious ideology with the acceptance of political figureheads, then we must quote from another part of the book.


Fight Submission with Illumination

image

As Gandhi once said, “if I were a dictator, religion and state would be separate. I swear by my religion. I will die for it. But it is my personal affair. The state has nothing to do with it. The state would look after your secular welfare, health, communications, foreign relations, currency and so on, but not your or my religion. That is everybody’s personal concern…” and yet, what happens when religious persecution becomes a daily occurrence? What happens when religions encounter a faith that will defend its right to exist as the only true religion with the blood and bones of its followers, as a first response? Peaceful protests become unsafe, as seen by the LBGT protest in France that skirted around specific areas with a high Muslim population. As evidenced by the attack at the French nightclub, at Nice and at the Candle Vigil, public gatherings are target-rich environments… However, this is only the beginning, but there is a silver lining…the Islamic State has already reached the height of violence. (Sexual mutilation, torture, castration, roasting a guy like a pig after tying him to a pole etc.) You can’t step it up from there, even if you nuke every major city on the planet. Most people prefer a slow death through radiation poisoning to being castrated and having their balls cut off and shoved in their mouth… That notwithstanding, their level of brutality is designed to elicit compliance and submission to their religious system. However, it also reveals that their attacks will not escalate in intensity, only in numbers. For the average person, this is the same thing, but for someone desensitised to the level of violence present in war-zones, this is a common ritual exercised during a Jihad.

In other words, these are the same techniques used to coerce conformity and submission that have been used for thousands of years. Although what everyone seems to forget is that we used to combat their extremism with our own brand of fanaticism during the times of the crusades. In fact, it was the West that introduced impaling one’s enemies, roasting them on a fire and eating them to the Middle East during the 1rst Crusade.

On a separate note, the Muslim wars of imperialist conquest have been ongoing for almost 1,500 years against hundreds of nations, over millions of square miles (significantly larger than the British Empire at its peak). Historically, Islamic conquests stretched from southern France to the Philippines, from Austria to Nigeria, and from central Asia to New Guinea. (The classic definition of imperialism: “the policy and practice of seeking to dominate the economic and political affairs of weaker countries.”)

The Muslim goal was to have a central government, first at Damascus, and then at Baghdad, later at Cairo, Istanbul, or other imperial centers. The local governors, judges, and other rulers were appointed by the central imperial authorities for far off colonies. Islamic law was introduced as the senior law, whether or not wanted by the local people. Arabic was introduced as the rulers’ language, and the local language frequently disappeared. Two classes of residents were established. The native residents paid a tax that their rulers did not have to pay. In each case, these laws allowed the local conquered people less freedom than was given to Muslims.

How many Muslim groups have taken long pilgrimages in the footsteps of the Muslim conquest repenting, seeking for forgiveness, and giving penance for the Muslims imperialist, colonialist, and bloody conquest of Palestine, Egypt, Syria, North Africa, and Spain? This is particularly important as the U.S. News article claims, “For Muslims imperialism is a dirty word” Where is Muslim repentance for its imperialism, geographically the largest in all of history, which permits Muslims to call Western imperialism a dirty word?”

Islam cannot be peaceful, until Muslims embrace the true nature of religion: Freedom & Equanimity, not genocide or submission.

Moreover, if Muslims abroad were treated as they treat others at home, they would enjoy few rights. Their passports would be seized, compelling them to work indefinitely… They would be murdered at random and their attackers let off with a fine, if they can even bothered to investigate. Their children would be kidnapped to be converted to another religion, so they may never see them again.  Their mothers, sisters, wives  and daughters would be jailed for not complying with local customs or for getting sexually assaulted on the streets. Instead, Islam basks in the legal equality provided by their host countries, even as they spread their ideology that demands the murder of non-Muslims.

Bonus Round

On an unrelated note, with every attack, Islam reinforces the fact that cannot intellectually defend their beliefs. They cannot convert others solely with their words, therefore they feel they must do so with the verse of the sword or any other way that is commanded by their Imam or the Islamic State. In the extreme forms of Islam, practitioner have no right to independently judge or critically assess their religion, unless they do not believe.

In addition, it is logically erroneous to set up a parallel between Muslims killing people in obedience to the Qur’an and Christians killing people in disobedience to the Bible. While the Qur’an commands Jihad, the New Testament forbids it.

In logic as well as in law, the term “historical precedent” means that the burden of proof rests on those who set forth new theories and not on those whose ideas have already been verified. Since Islam came along many centuries after Christianity, Islam has the burden of proof and not Christianity. The Bible tests and judges the Qur’an. When the Bible and The Qur’an contradict each other, the Bible must logically be given first place as the older authority. The Qur’an is in error until it proves itself.

Click Here For More

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Enlightenment Versus Submission

  1. Pingback: Death Is An Illusion | QuantumMediocrity

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s