Do not trust anybody ! Rely on your ignorance !

Submitted by Ianus (Poland), Jan 13, 2012 at 13:26

BB King wrote :

> Secularism is superior to Christianity, Islam and other religions. Did your Jesus have a role to play in that? I don't think so. The Enlightenment did.<

Jesus did play a more important role in the rise of secularism than your doctrine allows you to presume.The reason why secularism didn't arise in Islam is that Mahomet told his followers to simply cut off the heads of those who dare think that there is something superior to Islam.Jesus asked his followers to be more humble and modest. And this is the main reason that Enlightenment could spread. By the way, Enlightenment is not equal to atheism and many of the most outstanding representatives of Enlightenment believed in God and were good Christians and nothing would appall them more than cultural nihilism which you represent.

> I don't know about you but my civilization i.e., the U.S. was built on the foundation of secularism and the Constitution. Not Jesus. Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life.<

Your ignorance is amazing. From the very beginning the American civilization was designed as the re-enactment of the Bible. The Puritans defined themselves as the New Jews,they fled the Egyptian bondage in England, in America they founded the New Israel and the Indians were seen by them as new Canaanites. Their own stringent codes of law were based on the Bible and religion determined various educational institutions including Harvard, Yale, William and Mary, Rutgers, Princeton, Brown, King's College (= Columbia), Dartmouth etc. Everywhere Bible studies were required and some even adopted Hebrew words in their official emblem or seal.Many Founding Fathers of America came from these universities - Thomas Jefferson from William and Mary, James Madison - Princeton, Alexander Hamilton - King's College. And what do we read in 'the Declaration of Independence' ?

"When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Does it sound secular in the spirit of your favorite site "Jesus never existed"?If I were to trust you, then "your" civilization of which you seem to be so proud appears to be founded exactly upon the "delusions" that you asked me to keep to myself and not to infect you or anybody else with it. ;)

>The First Amendment said Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion and Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...<

So there is a basic contradiction between Jesus and the Constitution.<

If and only if you tacitly assume that religious tolerance about which the First Amendment says is incompatible with Christianity which is a very absurd claim. Since the end of the wars of religion in the 17th century religious tolerance was widely practiced and we in Poland had it as part of our laws as early as 1573 without becoming a secular state thereby.

Furthermore, can you name a single US president who was not a believer in Jesus? If Jesus and the Constitution are contradictions then why no atheists have so far reached the office to get rid of the contradiction? But wait, maybe you aspire to be the first to prove your dubious point ?

> No it's called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. All countries that voted in favor of the Declaration should abide by its rules.<

Tacitus once remarked that good morals and manners are much better than the best laws. The Universal Declarations of Human Rights was signed by such abusive and inhuman countries as Afghanistan and Turkey. Do you think they believe in a single word contained in the declaration that runs counter to their deepest value system and history and they are to abide by it rules ?

On a more general note, there is nothing universal in human rights at all. They belong to a particular epoch, arose under particular circumstances and when these circumstances disappear - as they are doing now- what you will be left with will be a piece of yellow paper and genocides and oppression of anybody who isn't strong enough to oppress more efficiently.

> You initially said that America should not judge Poland and quoted Jesus in saying He who is without sin should cast the first stone (paraphrase). But two wrongs i.e., a wrong committed by Poland and a wrong committed by U.S. do not make a right. If America finds that Poland has done something wrong it should say so and vice-versa.<

The problem was not Poland, which has degenerated by now to become nothing better than a roll of toilet paper in the US toilet, but the USSR. As America's vassal state we have to silently receive and execute orders from our new master and praise his wisdom and generosity on every occasion and hush up every abuse and humiliation. A country which has not reached the level of our degradation can counter demands in a more dignified way as long as it give a fair chance to answer the charges raised against it by some powerful self-proclaimed preachers of morality.

<"I case you don't realize what your own source says , then it reveals high treason committed by the Tatars whom our president and you flatter so impudently. They defected to the enemy during a bloody war with the Turk, they looted our territory, killed and hunted our people to sell them into slavery.">

This is called "changing the goal posts." Recall that you initially asked me how many Tatars fought in the Gates of Vienna? I simply provided an answer to this question and this question only. Many Tatars indeed fight in the Gates of Vienna and they were rewarded by King John III. Furthermore, if Tatars indeed committed treason in Polish history then they have also shed their lives for the defense of Poland in many of Poland's wars as the source states.<<

Just for your information, the Tatar commander Samuel Murza Krzeczowski had 60 horses with him while the Polish army that moved from Cracow to save Vienna counted more than 27 000 men, including the dreaded Polish Husar cavalry that finally crushed the beastly Turk. I told you what 61 men were used for, didn't I?The story of Tatars "bravely shedding blood for Poland" against their Moslem brethren at Vienna and then being rewarded by the king that a few years before had fought their treacherous pillaging detachments is a legend originating from the Tatars themselves and finds no independent confirmation. That such an avid myth-maker like you has clutched at it it is very symptomatic. The partisan motive of the legend is clear enough.They wanted to whitewash their treason and depredations of our territory a few years before. These few Tatars I repeat were not used in combat but in the rear and if any Tatars excelled in the battle these were the Crimean Tatars of Haji Ghirey that prevented the prophet's banner from being captured by the Christian army and for it he was later rewarded with the title of the Crimean khan.

<"while in fact it did destroy Hellenism,now demands "links,books and other forms of documentation" where just basic common sense and the most rudimentary knowledge of history will do. Do you really believe you're a serious person?">

I will take that reply as you will not provide me with links, books and documentation to counter my assertion that Muslims indeed embraced Hellenism at one point. Are you afraid of something Ianus? I assure you that I don't bite. At least I backed up my "absurd" statements with a link, which you to this day did not refute. <

Adversus stultitiam nec di certare possunt - as the Romans used to say.

<"As to "an English source", thanks to "Google Translate" tool any non-English source, including Ferdinand Gregorovius, can become understandable to you.">

> If you watched the debate between Dhimmi No More and Amin carefully you would've noticed that Google Translate does a shoddy job in translating Arabic. Why should I trust it with German?<

Right! Do not trust anybody! Rely on your ignorance !

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".