Tag Archives: Emotions

Commentary

MUST-READ: What can atheists do to counter religious parents?

9 Comments

Here’s a neat post up an Uncommon Descent. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

What I found most fascinating about Longman’s analysis is that he is able to explain why he thinks religion will eventually triumph over secularism in purely Darwinian terms. Having a baby is, for most couples in the modern world, a choice, which reflects their personal values. “And so,” writes Longman, “by Darwinian process, those who adhere to traditions that preserve and celebrate the ancient injunction to ‘go forth and multiply’ wind up putting more of their genes and ideas into the future than those who don’t.”

I imagine that well-read atheists are already aware of these social trends, and I’m sure they are quite worried about them. On the one hand, atheists naturally want the percentage of people espousing their secular world-view to increase; on the other hand, most of them believe that the world already has too many people for the Earth to support – which is a natural consequence of an atheistic world-view, as I pointed out in a recent post. Now put yourselves in the atheists’ shoes: how do you think they would attempt to fight these trends? The only way they can achieve the dual objectives of keeping the world’s population down and boosting the percentage of atheists worldwide is to target the fertility of highly religious people. I can think of a few fairly obvious ways in which they might attempt to do that, and because these measures are, in my opinion, politically feasible, I don’t share Longman’s certainty that religion will inevitably triumph over secularism. Some of these measures are either currently being implemented or are already well in place in many countries; other measures are a decade or two down the track. Well, here’s my list. Recognize any of these in your country of residence?

What follows is a LONG list of items that the secular humanists can use to make sure that religious parents are not able to pass on their beliefs to their own children.

Here are a few from the list:

  • Outlaw home schooling.
  • Extend the number of hours that children are required to spend at school
  • Introduce compulsory “values” classes into public schools
  • Introduce compulsory classes on “religious tolerance” into public schools
  • Enact laws guaranteeing free access to birth control (including abortion) at school as a fundamental human right for all students over the age of 12
  • Encourage the passage of laws which make the possession of a college degree essential for getting almost any kind of job.
  • Deny government funding to religious schools that teach any kind of “bigotry.”
  • Enact legislative measures disallowing childless couples from adopting a child if they intend to bring that child up in a faith which encourages any kind of “bigotry” or “intolerance”
  • At a later stage, enact laws extending the same “protection” to all children, regardless of whether they are adopted or not.
  • At a still later stage, enact laws allowing social workers to take children away by force from their parents (natural or adopted), if there is sufficient evidence that they are being raised in a household that encourages any form of “bigotry.”
  • Citing concerns about children’s welfare following a string of highly publicized cases of child neglect reported in the press, introduce laws requiring all expecting mothers to submit to a home inspection by a suitably qualified social worker, with a follow-up interview

He explains each the bullet points I listed, and there are more bullet points in the original list that I didn’t list. Some of those have already been spotted in Sweden, Germany, Ontario, Quebec, and California.

Wow. The guys on the other side really are enraged by the thought that Christian parents might pass their moral and spiritual views on to their children. They would rather that Christian guys like me just confine our contributions to the next generation to supplying sperm and tax money so that they can push their moral and spiritual views on our children instead. And so what if their views result in our children having abortions, getting STDs, paying child support, or dying of AIDS? They know they are right, and we Christian men are just a naive wage-slaves who need to shut up and work to fund their indoctrination of our children.

I am not sure that these issues are on the radar of the church at all, because churches are very much focused on providing a non-confrontational, non-judgmental “show” to entertain their members and provide emotional comfort. Not only is the church mostly devoid of apologetics, but it is especially devoid of politics and economics. Everything controversial that might offend anyone like exclusive claims, arguments, evidence, politics, economics, abortion, marriage, etc. has been removed from most churches. Saying that pre-marital sex and drunkenness are wrong, and that global warming is a false religion might make some people feel bad. And if people feel bad, then the money might stop flowing into the plates. (I am not even mentioning the churches that are basically extensions of the secular left, and who do not even believe in orthodox Christianity)

The remarkable thing about this is that there are lots of Bible-believing Christians who persist in voting for left-wing parties governed by the secular left, in order to punish “the rich” or to get “universal health care” or to fight “global warming”. I find it amazing that churches are so incredibly naive that they do not care what the secularists are planning for their marriages, families and children – they don’t even realize that the worldview of the secular left is – gasp – ANTI-CHRISTIAN. We just don’t discuss these issues seriously in church. We want church to be about feelings and entertainment. We are so incredibly non-confrontational and non-strategic in our thinking. We just want to have a good time now and not think about the fact that the marriage and family boat is sinking on an iceberg called secular humanism. Theology and apologetics would be a good start, but if it is not worked into a worldview and a life plan and a vision of society and government, what good is it?

Just to be clear, I am not advocating surrender. I am saying that when I am in church, I am surrounded by people who have no idea what is really at stake. I keep getting urged by these people to sing songs, chit-chat about feelings, marry, and to have children. It’s not going to work. There is a huge gulf between the church and I – they want to have fun and feelings and dance and sing and to keep going as if the secular left is just going to step aside and leave us alone. But I want to effectively defend the ability of authentic Christians to live out authentic Christian lives. So long as the church keeps thinking that “better worship” is the solution to the mass exodus of young Christians from church and social problems like the massive increases in out-of-wedlock births then I really have nothing in common with them.

News

MUST-READ: What is causing the epidemic of gang rapes in Europe?

18 Comments

ECM notified me about two posts over at Robert Stacy McCain’s blog.

Here’s is the first article, linked in McCain’s first post.

Excerpt from the article:

At home, Abid Saddique and Mohammed Liaqat, both of whom were married with young children, were considered clean, upstanding family men as well as devout Muslims.

But once they left their front door and their wives behind, they turned into vodka-swilling, cocaine-binging paedophiles who spent every available moment randomly targeting young girls on the street, befriending them, and then horrifically abusing them.

The 28-year-olds were at the head of a 13-strong gang who would film the assaults on their mobile telephones.

For over 18 months, dressed “sharply” in designer western clothes, wearing jewellery and sporting short haircuts, the pair cruised the streets of Derby in a silver BMW 5 series with blacked-out windows, approaching girls at random and with a bottle of vodka and plastic cups hidden under the front seats.

An undercover investigation by Derbyshire Police, dubbed Operation Retriever, was split into three trials which have run since February at Leicester Crown Court and can only now be reported.

The victims, aged between 12-18, ranged from girls in care to a 14-year-old A-grade student from a strong, middle-class home. They were predominantly girls with a troubled background.

[…]In one incident, Saddique, who was convicted of 14 of the 29 charges he faced, was accused of engaging in sexual activity with a 12-year-old in Derby’s picturesque Darley Park, while his accomplice Liaqat, who was convicted of 10 crimes of the 18 charges he faced, had sex with a 14-year-old in the BMW.

Another time, a 14-year-old girl was filmed having sex with three of the gang in a hotel room as cheers ring out.

The group faced 75 charges between them relating to twenty six girls, but police believe there are many more victims who have not come forward.

Yesterday, Saddique and Liaqat – who since legal proceedings have begun had grown long beards and now wear Islamic dress – were convicted of charges of sexual assault and sexual activity with a child, bringing the trials to a close.

This year they had already been convicted of a series of other offences including rape, sexual assault, sexual activity with a child, false imprisonment and making child pornography.

[…]“They were very confident in their approaches. They clearly thought of themselves as attractive young men, they had a car, they had some money and they would be quite aggressive when they would start their charm offensive.

McCain adds this from the UK Telegraph:

A SCHOOLGIRL, who was in the care of the city council when she fell victim to a gang of Derby perverts, had been groomed and sexually abused by another man only months earlier, the Telegraph can reveal.

The youngster was placed in a children’s home by Derby City Council for her own protection after police arrested Ansar Hussain, who targeted her when she was just 13.

But despite being under the supervision of social workers, she fell into the clutches of evil Abid Mohammed Saddique and Mohammed Romaan Liaqat – the ringleaders of a gang who raped and abused 27 girls.

And this from This is Derbyshire:

“[T]hey knew the difference between a girl that goes home to her family at the end of the night and a girl that doesn’t. I didn’t have anyone to protect me or look after me and thought they were going to look after and care for me.”

Most of the victims came from broken homes.

And here’s the second post by McCain.

Excerpt:

In a “serious case report,” the Derbyshire board examined issues involved in the cases of two girls (identified as YP1 and YP2) who had been under care of local authorities and were victimized by the Liaqat-Saddique gang. The board also incorporated findings of a multi-agency review in the cases of 25 other victims of the gang.

“Issues of culture, ethnicity and identity were a feature both in relation to the victims and the alleged perpetrators,” the Derbyshire board reported. The two girls “were confused about their identity and sense of belonging. They both had a poor self image and had difficulty making friends and fitting in.”

These issues were “a critical factor in making [the girls] easy targets for abusers,” according to the board report. “Questions have been raised for this review as to whether the ethnic background and culture of the perpetrators had any bearing on their decision to take part in this activity, and also whether the ethnic origin of the victims was significant in making them targets for abuse.”

And he links this Times of India article.

Excerpt:

Five British-born Pakistanis have been jailed for abusing white girls as young as 12.

The ‘sexual predators’ preyed on their victims over several months and threatened them with violence if they refused their advances.

One of the men branded his victim a “white b***h” when she resisted, while a second smirked, “I’ve used you and abused you.”

The men attacked the four girls in play areas, parks and in the back of their cars, Sheffield Crown Court heard. . . .

The five, Umar Razaq, 24, Razwan Razaq, 30, Zafran Ramzan, 21, Adil Hussain, 20, and Mohsin Khan, 21, were found guilty of a string of sexually related offences against the girls, one aged 12, two aged 13 and one aged 16.

Stacy adds:

Reid also cited another case in the Manchester area, where a 14-year-old runaway was a “sex slave” for an Asian gang. Nine men ages 25 to 33 – Asad Hassan, Mohammed Basharat, Mohammed Khan, Ahmed Noorzai, Mohammed Anwar Safi, Aftab Khan, Abid Khaliq, Mohammed Atif and Najibullah Safi — were convicted in that case.

According to Reid, “there is a controversial, but relevant, cultural issue. Asian men of Pakistani heritage often believe white girls have low morals compared with Muslim girls.” She quoted testimony in the Derbyshire case, when Saddique told the court: “These are girls I did not respect and these are girls who are just ­partying and taking drugs and we had consensual sex.”

[…]Last year, three men from the Keighley area – Mohammed Zackriya, 21, Mohammed Taj, 37, Mohammed Shabir, 36 — were convicted of sexually exploiting a 14-year-old.

Now I’m going to try to explain some factors that may be causing these events.

Why is this happening?

My hypothesis is two-fold.

  1. Feminism (which explains why the women were fatherless and vulnerable)
  2. Cultural relativism (which explains why the evil men were not challenged on their evil views)

Both of these have no stronger expression than in the United Kingdom, or perhaps in other European nations, which is why the problem is happening there more than here.

Feminism

As I’ve documented many times before by citing feminist scholars, the goal of third-wave (gender) feminism is the destruction of marriage because of the “unequal” male/female roles inherent in marriage. Third-wave feminists pushed early sex education, recreational pre-marital sex and taxpayer-funded abortion as a way to de-couple sex from marriage. As I documented elsewhere by citing research, pre-marital sex reduces the stability of marriages, and the effect is increased depending on the number of pre-marital sex partners. Feminists deal with the marital instability they introduced by legislating no-fault divorce, punitive divorce courts, domestic violence laws that don’t recognize violence by women against men, bigger social programs, more welfare, taxpayer-funded abortions, taxpayer-funded day care, taxpayer-funded IVF, and taxpayer-funded public schools as a way of substituting government for fathers and marriage. The result is a 40% out-of-wedlock birth rate (72% in inner-cities) and boys and girls raised without fathers.

Feminism claims that men have no distinctive role as protector/provider/moral and spiritual leader. As a result, women influenced by feminism shun chivalry, and bypass men who excel in the traditional roles and who would make good husbands and fathers, and prefer to have the drama of “hook-ups” with “bad boys”, which their girl friends heartily approve of – based on pop culture standards. Male chastity, skill in defending Christianity with logic and evidence, knowledge of social/fiscal/foreign policy, a good resume, and a good portfolio mean nothing – because it’s the government’s job to provide/protect and teach morality/religion to children.

Good men, seeing that goodness is getting them nowhere sexually, will drop goodness like a hot potato and begin to act like bad boys. Naturally, these bad boys are not able to shoulder the burdens of the roles of husband and father, because they were never evaluated or selected to fill those roles. Men have no roles on feminism – so feminists have no way to tell one man from another except based on the most shallow soap-opera/Hollywood-celebrity level of “hotness”, “confidence” (appearance of confidence, not substance), and “chemistry”. Having to choose a man based on qualifications, and having to follow rules for courting, seems to many women to be too “strict” – by which they mean that reason and evidence should not be allowed to override their emotions and the expectations of their peer group.

Instead of preparing themselves morally for their role in the marriage, and testing men for the role they will play in the marriage, women instead amuse themselves with self-centered fashionable and entertaining causes/hobbies like yoga, vegetarianism, fiction and biographies, Dancing with the Stars, People magazine, animal rights alarmism, and climate change alarmism. Thus, their choice of man is going to be made based on selfishness and whimsy, not on the merits. But marrying a lazy, ignorant, cowardly man makes the marital stability situation even worse. Marriages don’t survive if neither the man or the woman is tested and selected for making self-sacrificial commitments to other people.

The real victims of marital instability are the innocent children of the selfish feminists. As a result, boys grow up without fathers, which increases their tendency to be poor students, poor workers and sexually aggressive, and girls grow up without fathers, which drastically lowers the age at which they have sex.

Cultural relativism

Cultural relativism is the idea that is very popular on the secular left that all cultures are basically equal. This is what is taught in public schools where the achievements of Western Civilization are minimized, especially with respect to the United States, while the practices of other cultures are lionized. This is done because of the liberal belief that wars are caused by disagreements. The way to remove disagreements (according to the left) is by bashing down what is really good (Western Civilization) and lifting up what is evil, so that every view becomes equally valid. Specific evils from other cultures, like burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands, are rationalized as either not being evil at all, or by being the fault of the good nations. The goal of the left is to make sure that no one is able to judge anything as right or wrong, so that no one will feel bad about being judged.

Cultural relativism also causes left-wing parties to open Western countries up to massive immigration by unskilled immigrants, or by the unskilled family members of skilled immigrants. The goal of the left here is to tilt the voting away from Western ideas like the rule of law, capitalism, property rights, personal responsibility, religious liberty, monogamy, etc. No attempt to teach the superiority of Western values and beliefs is made in the public schools, so that you can have unskilled immigrants collecting welfare as they protest the very society in which they are protected and supported by taxpayer dollars.

As a result, immigrant communities that are not assimilated through education in civics, economics, and American history can actually import the very cultural beliefs and practices that hold their countries back from liberty, prosperity and security. In fact, in the UK, they actually have a parallel system of sharia law. In Canada, polygamous marriages, with multiple spouses collecting welfare, is normal. Cultural relativism is a major plank of left-wing parties like the Democrats.

It’s very important to understand that the ways that men and women interact in these other countries is not the standard used in the West. Although the left has attacked the values of chastity, modesty and courting that were the staples of Western Civilization, many believing Jews and Christians still believe in modesty and chastity today. The Bible forbids fornication (pre-marital sex) and that standard is one of the major reasons why we have these elaborate courting rituals and this focus on love and marriage, although you would never know it by watching Hollywood movies that glorify emotion-based relationships that lead to pre-marital sex. It turns out that the left and the Islamic radicals are actually united in their denial of the ways of courting that are found in Western literature and art – both oppose chastity, both oppose chivalry, and both oppose the sanctity of marriage.

Conclusion

It’s interesting to note that the majority of young unmarried women support parties on the political left like the Democrats, who push feminism and cultural relativism. They are doing this to themselves, and often criticizing any man who dares to point out what the impact of their vote really is. Voting is not about feeling good, it’s about doing good.

Commenters – please keep it short and contest specific claims that I made, and link to evidence to support your challenge. I will just dig up evidence as needed to support my claims when you contest them, because I don’t want to copy everything from previous posts.

Commentary

Why are so many British feminists converting to Islam?

37 Comments

Mary sent me this article a while back about a trend of conversions to Islam by women in the UK.

Here’s an example story:

Women like Kristiane Backer, 43, a London-based former MTV presenter who had led the kind of liberal Western-style life that I yearned for as a teenager, yet who turned her back on it and embraced Islam instead. Her reason? The ‘anything goes’ permissive society that I coveted had proved to be a superficial void.

The turning point for Kristiane came when she met and briefly dated the former Pakistani cricketer and Muslim Imran Khan in 1992 during the height of her career. He took her to Pakistan where she says she was immediately touched by spirituality and the warmth of the people.

Kristiane says: ‘Though our relationship didn’t last, I began to study the Muslim faith and eventually converted. Because of the nature of my job, I’d been out interviewing rock stars, travelling all over the world and following every trend, yet I’d felt empty inside. Now, at last, I had contentment because Islam had given me a purpose in life.’

‘In the West, we are stressed for super­ficial reasons, like what clothes to wear. In Islam, everyone looks to a higher goal. Everything is done to please God. It was a completely different value system.

‘Despite my lifestyle, I felt empty inside and realised how liberating it was to be a Muslim. To follow only one god makes life purer. You are not chasing every fad.

‘I grew up in Germany in a not very religious Protestant family. I drank and I partied, but I realised that we need to behave well now so we have a good after-life. We are responsible for our own actions.’

For a significant amount of women, their first contact with Islam comes from ­dating a Muslim boyfriend. Lynne Ali, 31, from Dagenham in Essex, freely admits to having been ‘a typical white hard-partying teenager’.

She says: ‘I would go out and get drunk with friends, wear tight and revealing clothing and date boys.

‘I also worked part-time as a DJ, so I was really into the club scene. I used to pray a bit as a Christian, but I used God as a sort of doctor, to fix things in my life. If anyone asked, I would’ve said that, generally, I was happy living life in the fast lane.’

But when she met her boyfriend, Zahid, at university, something dramatic happened.

She says: ‘His sister started talking to me about Islam, and it was as if ­everything in my life fitted into place. I think, underneath it all, I must have been searching for something, and I wasn’t feeling fulfilled by my hard-drinking party lifestyle.’

Why is this happening? Why are women in the West choosing Islam? Is it because Islam is tested and found to be true?

I have a hypothesis, but I am open to hearing other ideas. I think that what these women are looking for is not really truth, but community and a system of rules that they can follow in order to feel accepted by the community and to feel less guilty about the mistakes they made in the past. It’s not like they are undertaking some survey of religions and evaluating each one based on logical and evidential criteria. It’s not like they watched debates and listened to multiple sides in conflict. No. It’s that they partied a lot, then felt guilty, then picked a religion with rules about prayer and dress, (easy things they can show off and talk about), that would make their guilt go away. They turned over a new leaf and their new community-approved behavior is giving them acceptance and self-esteem. Truth has nothing to do with their search, and they don’t think that anyone else’s view is “false” either. They have no intention of arguing for their new convictions with other faith communities to see whose view is true. The point of their conversion is NOT to be RIGHT, it’s to FEEL GOOD about themselves after all the bad things they did. Religion is really on the same level as yoga, vegetarianism, recycling or pilades – it’s about subjective experience and feelings not about objective truth.

I identify this phenomenon primarily with women, but many men do it too. I would say something like 70% of women and 30% of men have this subjective approach to religion. This is why I complain about the “feminization” of Christianity. But Biblical Christianity is not feminized – it’s not postmodern, it’s not relativistic and it’s not universalist. We Christians should not want to appeal to the felt needs of people looking for community and self-esteem. We are a community based on truth, not a community based on feelings and needs and emotions. If religion is nothing but community and emotions, then there is nothing special about Jesus. He’s just one flavor – you can choose him if you like him, but if you don’t like him then you aren’t rationally obligated (by arguments and evidence) to choose him. I am appalled some people think of religion this way. It annoys me intensely. They are treating religion as the search for handbag or a new pair of shoes – shopping therapy to assuage guilty feelings.

When I see people choosing their religion like these women, it really causes me to wonder what is really going on in our churches. Is that all we are – a country club where people sing and feel a sense of belonging to a community and that some untested spirit in the sky is taking care of them? I know that the Bible doesn’t sanction a subjective approach to religion, but what if the church gets feminized and just dumps the Bible and focuses on creating tolerant welcoming communities and self-esteem building? Do we really believe that these moral rules are authoritative, and that they reflect God’s character and his design for us – our moral obligations? What if we minimize truth and sin and Hell and just give people a country club where people can discuss the weather, vacations and their kids’ extracurricular activities, and sing songs together, and assuage their guilt over their mispent youths. I am not saying that Christians have to be morally perfect – but maybe we would project seriousness about these matters if we were a little more informed and a little more self-sacrificial.

The question I have is – why don’t Christians make a bigger deal about the importance of truth so they can distinguish Christianity from other religions, and why don’t we do a better job of explaining our moral rules, (e.g. – chastity, pro-life, pro-marriage), with real logic and real evidence? Maybe if we made our Biblical criteria (truth) known, then people who choose Islam would realize that they were just jumping at religions based on their personal preferences, and neglecting to ask which one is true. Maybe then we would have something to offer other than nice buildings, “non-judgmental” (moral relativist) people, and good worship songs that make people have happy feelings. I know that people actually choose churches based on superficial things like whether they like the building or the songs. It makes me sick. It makes me sick to think that atheists are looking at us and thinking that we are all just irrational weaklings mouthing words that we have no reason to believe, and adopting rules in order to feel good about ourselves. Do people in the church have any idea how this looks to outsiders? They’re not stupid. They can tell authentic Christians from fakes.