if the claims of Christianity are true, then Islam must be a false religion - and vice versa

Odd that it hasn’t occurred to me before something which, now being recognised, seems obvious - I’d like to think this cognitive failure stems from the media’s politically correct noise doing such a good job of burying info it doesn’t want to hear or see - or maybe I’m just stupid - I dunno - but the obvious revelation that just sort of popped into my head is that if the claims of Christianity are true, then Islam must be a false religion - and vice versa - Islam can only make sense if the divinity of Jesus is denied - Christianity can only make sense by denying that Allah is the one true God because that’s the only way to explain him not informing Muhammad about the divinity of his son - therefore, logically neither religion can tolerate the other and still hope to express a coherent understanding of some deity’s creation. This is so obvious as to be almost a tautology - and yet, in the Christian world at least, that fact is practically ignored - indeed, some Christians reach out to Muslims as if they shared some sacred bond with them, which is a ludicrous absurdity - Muslims on the other hand seem to be much more cognizant of this inherent tension between the two faiths and I’d say that’s not just because the Koran clearly identifies the problem as a problem, as of course it must since the Gospels predate it by several hundred years and undermine its central point.

No, I’d say the reason this inherent tension between the two faiths seems to go unnoticed in the Christian world is because, unlike Islam, Christianity as an apolitical religion is well suited to running on faith alone and therefore tends to be much more tolerant of certain beliefs ‘not making sense’ - a true Christian, certainly in the modern era, simply doesn't care about making sense - contrarily, the highly political nature of Islam makes it much less tolerant of accepting a charge of incoherence because such a charge would not just render the faith incoherent but also the entire culture which props it up.

Point being the takeaway is: Islam and Christianity are not just perforce incompatible given the tenets they espouse - those tenets, if taken seriously, logically pose an existential threat to the validity and credibility of the other - but Christians tend to look past this highly problematic conflict of interests because Christianity's apolitical nature puts practically all justification for its credo in an individual’s faith in the redeeming power of the resurrection of Christ and the grace that comes of it - whereas Islam depends a great deal on an active political component to get to where it wants to go.

As for me, from an epistemological point of view, I believe all religions are false constructs - understandable consequences of natural human behavior and psychology for sure and therefore not necessarily illegitimate per se - but false regardless - still, I do not embrace atheism as a sensible position for the simple reason I can’t prove the claims of the various religions to be false and so the potentiality of me being wrong clearly exists, no matter how small I may consider that potentiality to be - nevertheless, by the same token believers have little choice but to accept that for the very reasons I can’t prove religions to be false things neither can the faithful prove they are not.

I’d say we should be dumping an Islamist like Erdogan...

McCarthy gets it exactly right - and it’s beyond me why people who want to talk about the ‘problem of Islam’ do not talk about it in this utterly reasonable way - focus entirely on the political component active in Islam, avoid entirely the theological - now, what makes Islam so difficult a thing to deal with is the fact that its theological and political components are so intertwined - but reform minded Muslims, the ones you want to appeal to, understand this is the problem which is why you have to bear down on that problem - it’s the only way to deflect the left’s charges of racism and open up ground for reform minded Muslims to step forward. Yes, liberals are going to pound the racist rhetoric no matter what because that’s what their ideology is all about - which is why reasonable people have to pound equally hard on the political argument and assiduously avoid anything that seems to confirm the liberal nonsense - this made clear by the troubles Trump is having: his sloppy rhetoric on Muslims, his poorly defined arguments opened the door for activist judges to practice bad law and make him look like a racist fool. I tend to doubt that Trump is capable of learning from this mistake - but others must.

When the ‘president’ of Egypt spoke out and addressed precisely this problem - political islam - as being the defining problem undermining Muslim culture, Obama of course, as a progressive idiot, ignored him - Sisi was sounding too much like a reasonable Republican - but this kind of talk from reform minded Muslims is the very thing we need to embrace and encourage. Yes, Sisi, with his other issues, is not an easy man to embrace and may therefore be a bad example - still, this needs to be the goal. I’d say we should be dumping an Islamist like Erdogan and supporting reform minded Muslims in Turkey - Erdogan is a lost cause, not a friend of the West nor a reliable ally and is currently trying to establish an Islamist dictatorship in Turkey - I think we should be opposing this in the strongest terms possible - but that would require a leader who can attack political Islam as being incompatible with Western democratic values without sounding like a racist. Doubt that person is Trump - and that argument is definitely not going to be mounted by anyone on the left since such ideas undermine their ideology which now seems to be based entirely on non-white ‘identity’ - so who then? Because without a persuasive spokesperson stepping forward this problem will persist and no doubt worsen.

[on cue Erdogan urges Muslims in Europe to breed like bunnies so they can take the place over - he didn’t of course put it precisely in those terms but the intent was clear: unleash the demographic A-bomb and Islam will conquer the EU. I mean, the liberal elite in Europe are already willing to make significant concessions to Islamists - allowing Sharia courts to operate, enacting hate speech laws designed specifically to suppress criticism of Islam - what happens when Muslims make up 15, 20, 25 percent of the electorate? The ramparts will have been breached at that point and then you’re looking at a complete breakdown of political order I’d say as people who refuse to participate in this cultural self immolation push back - hell, you're already seeing that dynamic now and Muslims in the EU have yet to cross merely the 10% demographic line. Erdogan is quickly becoming a focal point in Huntington's long predicted clash of civilizations - question is are we witnessing a clever and insidious stratagem playing out or is this more a reflection of Erdogan’s despotic Islamist ego running amok?]

[another question re reaching out to reform minded Muslims - what if reform is impossible because the political and theological, purely faith based components of Islam are just too interdependent? This is an entirely and maybe even likely outcome of an outreach to reform minded Muslims - coming to the conclusion that real reform is impossible - so what then? To conservatives making the political argument against Islam liberals like to point out that Judaism too has a pronounced political component to it - not surprising since Muhammed created his religion by co-opting large chunks of the Jewish faith and holy books - but of course raising this point ignores the fact that Judaism has already been reformed by hundreds of years of forced assimilation into Western culture - lacking access to political power, Jews had little choice but to mute the political components of their faith and adopt Western norms - what would Jewish culture, Judaism, Israel look like today without that forced integration into the West? Might look a lot like political Islam. If so, is it unreasonable to say that without forced assimilation into Western culture the clash of civilizations is inevitable since multiculturalism views the ‘melting pot’ ethos which in essence forces assimilation a reflection of racism and white privilege and therefore not legitimate? Doesn’t seem unreasonable to me - although, at least on the domestic side of things - ie excluding worrisome foreign policy questions - I see this as being much more of a problem for Europe than the US at the moment]

gonna be a bad day for someone

One thing I don't get about this whole wiretapping brouhaha - if the FISA court was approached, twice, by Obama surrogates, or the FBI acting in response to Obama’s DOJ, since FISA is about national security, actions by its court fall under the purview of the presidency and I imagine various congressional committees - so why does everyone still seem to not know what was in the FISA petitions or whether they were even made? Sure it’s classified info, but not when it comes to the President and the intelligence committees - so why all the confusion? Seems to me either Trump knows the details but can’t divulge them, is being stonewalled by the FBI, or was the target of the FISA action and can’t access the info because that I guess would amount to tampering with an ongoing investigation - although FISA is not a criminal court so I don't know how that would work exactly. Regardless - there must be several or more people still in the government who know what’s what here but can’t say for any number of reasons - still, why are so many people who should have a clue acting as if they don’t? It seems improbable to me that at the very least Trump doesn’t know if FISA petitions were filed and who the target was - if they weren’t filed or he wasn't the target, why put out those tweets? And if they were filed and he was the target - why put out the tweets? Because he did nothing wrong but knows Obama did and wants the press to jump on the story? Or because he is guilty of something and wants to make the story rather about supposed misdeeds by Obama? But - with so many leaks so far by Obama operatives trying to damage Trump - if he is guilty of something, why haven’t the details of that been leaked? Is it possible because both Trump and Obama are guilty of serious misdeeds here?

Lot of questions - precious few answers - but one is definitely getting the feeling that once those questions are answered, it’s gonna be a bad day for someone.

Middlebury and the death of a nation

What happened last week to Charles Murray at Middlebury College should be a stark wake up call for lefties that forces them to start pushing back in a serious way against the fascist ideology the progressive religion is turning into - but you won't see the push back - some faint gestures, some wispy rationalizations, but no real push back - and that’s how a country dies. The left is in dire need of a George Orwell ‘where’s the omelette?’ moment - ya know, where someone of stature who is soundly associated with progressive causes stands up and says ‘this is wrong, this intolerance has to stop or it will lead to bad things, our country can’t be about behavior like this’ - but I have  little optimism you’ll see such a thing - and that’s because Orwell was a brilliant man who lived in a time where you may have ascribed to a certain point of view but you were still well acquainted with other points of view, even those you strongly disagreed with - he would have read thoroughly Burke and Hobbes and Machiavelli - he would have applied Hume’s sceptical empiricism to Marxist determinism and found the latter wanting - such a broad scope would have allowed him, with humility, to keep an open mind - whereas today the left’s hivemind is closing with such intemperate rapidity that to even just entertain a notion not firmly embedded in the progressive canon can have you labeled a heretic and burnt at the metaphorical stake - and given what happened at Middlebury College one wonders just how long that ‘burning’ will remain merely metaphorical.

The key problem with the disunion of the European Union...

The key problem with the disunion of the European Union is how can such a divided people ever again act without division? Cynics like me would argue that they never could which is why the whole idealist nature of the grand EU scheme was flawed, but putting that aside here’s the thing, the crux of the matter: the two visions of the pro-EU/anti-EU camps represent such sharp differences of opinion about such hugely fundamental questions like national identity and democratic governance and fiscal policy and foreign policy etc etc that how can the side that loses the argument ever be at peace with the side that wins? Seems impossible to me - and this existential crisis does not plague the EU alone - we can see the same dynamic emerging in the US where ‘progressives’ have moved so far to the left that they have for all intents and purposes utterly detached themselves in thought and actions from the mores defining middle America - the left loves its multiculturalist poses and polemics except when it comes to the American culture that voted for Trump - that culture they despise and have no use for. How can a country or other polity overcome a divide like this? The notion of a united people laboring with common cause towards some great future seems like the dream of a magical Kingdom that exists now only in the fading memories of a better generation.

So, what to make of Trump’s claims about phone taps etc etc

So, what to make of Trump’s claims about phone taps etc etc - first impression, in a fit of rage arising from clear attempts by Obama operatives to undermine his presidency Trump flew off the handle and made assertions based on weak evidence. What he’s claiming is definitely credible as far as suppositions go - but as for facts? He’s on dubious ground and may have just given the Democrats all they need to render his presidency null and void. Yes, the Obama administration was looking into Trump associates re questionable Russia related behavior - yes, they had gone to FISA for reasons which look a bit iffy - maybe a lot iffy - but ultimately with motivations that are not at all clear, and against whom precisely no one knows. To me the key ingredient is the timing - if you were convinced you were going to win the election, which the Democrats certainly were, why just before the vote go after Trump in the way he is suggesting? It makes no sense. What makes sense is they were looking for info they could use to discredit Trump and by extension the GOP after Hillary won and Trump started raising a ruckus about a fixed election etc etc. This scenario does not rule out that indeed the Obama admin used the FISA courts in an illegitimate and scandalous way - which is the claim I think Trump is making - who the fuck knows with this guy - but right now there’s little proof to suggest this claim is true - which means what can be proven to be true may undo or make the Trump presidency. In short, my sense is this does not look good for Trump - but potentially could redound to his benefit in a huge way.

Does anything say progressivism is a secular religion for the insane better than the transgender nonsense?

It changes, but this is my current go to response when confronted by unmoored from reason transgender advocacy:

You may like birds, you may like birds so much you start acting like a bird until indeed at some point you come to think that you are actually a bird and begin insisting that people who know better start calling you a bird if they wish not to offend your soft neo-avian soul - but if you jump out that window the pavement you eventually splatter against is scientific fact telling you you’re not a bird. Sure, you’re free to live in denial of that reality if you want, that’s your business - but what most decidedly isn’t your business is the right to force me out that window with you.

Who will fight the left’s wars for them?

You’re hearing a lot of talk from the left - leftist celebrities [that’s a rather silly redundancy] seem especially fond of this - talk of ‘revolution’, of armed insurrection against the fascist Trump - even though talk of violently overthrowing a duly elected president because he’s hurt your feelings would seem way more fascistic than anything Trump has even remotely done - but details, details. Of course just one problem with all this belligerent blather from angst ridden progressives - exactly which military is it the left thinks will join them in this fight? Because it damn sure ain’t the American military. I know a few Marines, and I can pretty much assure you they didn't sign up for the privilege of laying it on the line to defend transgender bathrooms. Which led to this conversation I recently had with an earnest young lefty.

“We gotta rise up against this Trump fascist!”

“When you say ‘we’, you mean…?”

“The people, man.”

“By ‘people’ you mean that half of the country made legitimate by not having voted for Trump?”

“Trump didn’t get half the vote.”

“Well, yes, Hillary did overwhelmingly carry the Mexican vote in California so you do have something of a point there. But still, in the spirit of indulging your enthusiasm, you are essentially advocating for a civil war, yes?”

“To defend our freedoms, if it comes to that, sure.”

“Again, it really seems like it’s an expression of freedom that’s got you all riled up here, so I’m not at all sure your liberty loving motives are wholly pristine. But, regardless, putting that aside, I’ve heard a lot of your type going on in this way of late and it’s left me curious about something: in this war you’re imagining, who exactly is it that’s fighting on your side?”

“The military will join us.”

“The American military?”

“If the cause is just, sure.”

“Hmmmn… have you ever served in the military?”

“No.”

“Do you know anyone who has or is serving in the military?”

“No.”

“Have you ever engaged in a serious conversation with a service member or veteran?”

“No, not that I remember.”

“Do your reading habits include journals that deal in an in-depth way with military life, military affairs, foreign policy, stuff like that?”

“No.”

“Did you major in military history at university?”

“Definitely not. I was a theater major.”

“ Of course. But did you take any course at university that would have touched on the subject of war in a serious manner, even if only in the realm of fiction?”

“No.”

“Well, then… I gotta ask… how is it you come by this extraordinary insight into the military mind that’s got you so convinced the boys will be on your side come the war you keep imagining?”

“They’ll do what’s right… they’ll do what they’re told.”

“Ah, now there’s the rub. They’ll do it because it’s right, and it’ll be right because you say so. And still, according to you, the fascist here is Trump?”

“Absolutely!”

“Then press on, my friend, press on - because there’s nothing I long for more than to see a type like you standing before the First Armoured Division and telling them to invade Oklahoma because a Christian bakery there has refused to do up a cake for a gay wedding. What a glorious sight that will be. Consecrated ground indeed.”

Of course, the whole ‘statistical inevitability’ of life elsewhere in the universe...

Of course, the whole ‘statistical inevitability’ of life elsewhere in the universe can spin the other way, can’t it - as our ability to analyse the atmospheres of distant planets improves, the longer we go without seeing signs of organic life, the more the statistical needle starts to tilt towards Earth in fact being maybe a unique thing. The Goders would I imagine hitch onto that narrative with a gleeful abandon.

Blasphemy in Denmark?

An odd confluence of things recently - 7 planets discovered orbiting red dwarf Trappist 1, ‘only’ 40 light years away - in galactic terms, that’s close. Three of the planets apparently are parked squarely in the star’s sweet spot as far as possibilities of life go. This discovery confirms what we already knew - that planets in solar systems are common phenomena, which means planets that fall into the ‘goldilocks zone’ of these suns are probably common too, which means there could be millions of planets in our galaxy alone that are potentially capable of supporting life - which means, statistically speaking, the idea that life on Earth is unique is looking like a bad bet. With gear like the powerful James Webb space telescope coming online soon our ability to look for signs of organic life in the atmospheres of distant planets is going to increase dramatically - which means that in as little as ten years proof could emerge that declares, yep, we got company.

And then, set up against that news, Denmark, a modern, left wing, secular country, decided it’d be a good idea to charge one of its citizens with blasphemy. Guy videotaped himself burning a Koran. Apparently that’s ‘offensive’ - not sure if he’d decided to burn a bible too that would have been equally offensive - can I burn the vulgate bible, is that allowed? Anyway, someone should tell the Danes, the very notion of the holy trinity is offensive to the claims of Islam, so, hey, how arbitrary is the line we’re drawing here? I mean, the Koran is hardly sparing in its contempt for ‘the people of the book’, a phrase which oozes scorn - so when’s a thing offensive and when ain’t it?

Regardless - these two bits of news don’t seem to fit well together, do they? Makes a person uneasy. On one hand we see the real possibility that shortly proof will emerge that renders all religious texts ‘inaccurate’, mythological tales in keeping with the creation stories and totemistic mutterings primitive peoples have plying their hopes and fears with since about, what, 15,000 years ago - and on the other hand Denmark wants to throw a guy in jail for blasphemy. Wow. The thing about this is, though - if proof does emerge that amounts to a kick in the head to the claims of established religions, I see Christianity and Judaism, long exposed to the enervating, mitigating effects of secularism, rolling with the punches without too much rending of garments - but Islam? Does anyone see Muslims taking this news well? They threaten to burn cities to the ground over cartoons - what happens when science demonstrates that their holy book, which ostensibly contains the precise words of an all powerful, infallible deity, is full of things that can't possibly be true? Nope, really don't see that going over well.