Category Archives: debate

Rant About Gun Control

Posted on by
“Guns don’t kill people, they are only tools to kill.”
SHUT UP! It’s guns + toxic personalities that kill people! Not guns alone!
“This is not a gun problem, but a mental health problem.”
Another lie! Most mentally ill people are not violent to the point of murder.
“If you ban or restrict guns, only criminals can use them.”
Most mass shooters are NOT career criminals because mass shootings are not profitable. That’s why background checks for gun buyers are practically useless. Only an outright ban nationwide of assault rifles will do!
“The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.”
Yes, that’s why we have POLICE who are trained to handle such situations! I DON’T WANT SOME RANDOM JOE RUNNING INTO A MASS SHOOTING WITH ANOTHER GUN! THAT DOES NOT HELP AND YOU ARE DELUSIONAL TO THINK OTHERWISE! STOP WATCHING WESTERN SHOWS AND THINKING THEY ARE APPLICABLE TO TODAY! GROW UP!
“Gun control laws violate the Second Amendment.”
Yet another damned lie! The Second Amendment actually starts with “A WELL-REGULATED militia, being necessary for the security of a free state…..” What opposition to gun control does is put most of us under threat from an UNREGULATED mob, which makes the security of the people in a free state impossible. So the Second Amendment actually REQUIRES gun control!
The simple truth is that the same toxic masculinity that causes mass shootings is also responsible for the right-wing bigoted conservatism that has dominated the Republican Party since at least the 1980s. These hypocrites expect the government to fight foreign based terrorism, but at the same time they enable domestic terrorism. Yes, every single mass shooting in the USA is a case of domestic TERRORISM. As was the incident at the Capitol building on January 6, 2021. So if you want anyone to blame for mass shootings/domestic terrorism, look at the REPUBLICANS. VOTE EVERY ONE OF THEM YOU POSSIBLY CAN OUT OF OFFICE!

MAKE AMERICA SAFE AGAIN!

Another Haifan Baha’i Gets Busted on Reddit

Posted on by

A subreddit devoted to religion in general got a post from a Muslim about the Baha’i Faith.

Questions for bahai’s from religion

But among the comments there was a verbal tennis match between trident, a Unitarian Baha’i, and FrenchBread, a Haifan Baha’i.

FrenchBread5941
You will have many responses if you post this in r/bahai
________________
trident765
Baha’i
r/Freespeechbahai for alternative Bahai perspectives

________________

FrenchBread5941
you aren’t even a Baha’i
________________
trident765
Baha’i

Yes I am

_______________

FrenchBread5941
There is no such thing as Haifan or Unitarian Bahá’ís. You can’t make things up like that. I can call myself the Wizard of Oz but it doesn’t mean anything.
___________________________
trident765
Baha’i

The difference between Haifan and Unitarian Bahais is Haifan Baha’is believe that after Baha’u’llah’s death Abdul Baha’s Will was to be followed, which appointed Shoghi Effendi and then the UHJ as the successors, whereas Unitarian Bahais believe that after Baha’u’llah’s death the instructions of the Kitab i Ahd were to be followed, which appointed Mirza Muhammad Ali as the successor of Abdul Baha.

I don’t see why you think there is no such thing as a Unitarian Bahai.

__________________

FrenchBread5941
The Kitab-i-Ahd did not appoint Mirza Muhammad Ali. Go read it again.
_______________________
trident765
Baha’i

It says Abdul Baha and then Muhammad Ali after him.

_____________________

FrenchBread5941
No it says the station of Muhammad Ali is beneath that of Abdul’Baha. It says nothing of him succeeding Abdul’Baha. It also says we must obey Abdul’Baha and to turn away from him is like turning away from Baha’u’llah. Abdul’Baha was free to choose his successor and he chose Shoghi Effendi. It’s a done deal. There is nothing to argue.
____________________
trident765

Only in the Haifan translation. Beneath is a mistranslation of the word بعد, which means “after” and does not mean “beneath”. Earlier translations did not use the word beneath. I include the Horace Holley translation in this post:

https://old.reddit.com/r/FreeSpeechBahai/comments/pbkwoe/my_interpretation_of_bahaullahs_successor/

The word “beneath” is not found here.

This is what the Kitab i Ahd says in the original language:

وصيّة اللّه آنکه بايد اغصان و افنان و منتسبين طرّاً بغصن اعظم ناظر باشند انظروا ما انزلناه فی کتابی الاقدس اذا غيض بحر الوصال و قضی کتاب المبدء فی المآل توجّهوا اِلی من اراده اللّه الّذی انشعب من هذا الاصل القديم مقصود از اين آيه مبارکه غصن اعظم بوده کذلک اظهرنا الامر فضلاً من عندنا و انا الفضّال الکريم قد قدّر اللّه مقام الغصن الاکبر بعد مقامه انّه هو الآمر الحکيم قد اصطفينا الاکبر بعد الاعظم امراً من لدن عليم خبير

_______________________

FrenchBread5941
Whether or not you translate it as “beneath” or “after” does not change the fact that the passage is not implying in any way about who should be the successor after Abdul’Baha. I can’t fathom how you can read it in such a matter. Once Muhammad Ali broke the covenant by not recognizing Abdul’Baha it’s a moot point. Muhammad Ali was excommunicated so he can’t be the successor anyway. You need to stop spreading this kind of disinformation. It’s so harmful to your soul that I am deeply saddened for you.
_____________________
trident765

It doesn’t imply it. It commands it explicitly:

Verily, God hath ordained the station of the Greater Branch after the station of the former. Verily, He is the Ordainer, the Wise. We have surely chosen the Greater after the Greatest as a Command from the All-Knowing, the Omniscient!

____________________

FrenchBread5941
It says station not succession. My station is lower than Abdul’Baha but that doesn’t mean I am to succeed him. The key word is station.
____________________
trident765
Baha’i

So what was the point of mentioning Muhammad Ali at all?

____________________

FrenchBread5941
To make sure Muhammad Ali (and everyone else in the family and the community) knew that Muhammad Ali was to obey Abdul’Baha. So that Muhammad Ali would not challenge the successorship after Baha’u’llah’s death, and everyone would turn to Abdul’Baha for leadership and there wouldn’t be a schism.
________________
trident765

Baha’i

Wouldn’t it make things clearer to just not mention Muhammad Ali, and just say that everyone was to obey Abdul Baha?

____________________

FrenchBread5941
Clearly Baha’u’llah felt the need to address Muhammad Ali by name specifically so that there would be no doubt or question amongst everyone in the family. I’d recommend you read God Passes Bye which talks quite a bit about the trouble that Muhammad Ali was causing at the time for Abdul’Baha. Later in Abdul’Baha’s ministry, Muhammad Ali went as far as trying to have Abdul’Baha crucified by the Ottomans.
________________________
Well, that was over two months ago. When I found that thread, I decided that FrenchBread needed to be taught a lesson in humility. So I went after him!
Seeker_Alpha1701
Unitarian Universalist

If other Baha’is are anything like YOU in the way you argued with trident here, then clearly those responses in the Baha’i subreddit are not to be trusted.

You said:

There is no such thing as Haifan or Unitarian Bahá’ís. You can’t make things up like that. I can call myself the Wizard of Oz but it doesn’t mean anything.

That’s like saying there is no such thing as a Christian outside the Roman Catholic Church. Don’t be so bigoted! Then you claimed:

[The Kitab-i-Ahd] says the station of Muhammad Ali is beneath that of Abdul’Baha. It says nothing of him succeeding Abdul’Baha. It also says we must obey Abdul’Baha and to turn away from him is like turning away from Baha’u’llah. Abdul’Baha was free to choose his successor and he chose Shoghi Effendi. It’s a done deal. There is nothing to argue.

Do you read the original languages of Baha’u’llah’s writings, Arabic and Persian? Apparently not! When trident tried to correct you with the actual quotation from the passage in question, you simply doubled down on the falsehoods.

Whether or not you translate it as “beneath” or “after” does not change the fact that the passage is not implying in any way about who should be the successor after Abdul’Baha. I can’t fathom how you can read it in such a matter. Once Muhammad Ali broke the covenant by not recognizing Abdul’Baha it’s a moot point. Muhammad Ali was excommunicated so he can’t be the successor anyway. You need to stop spreading this kind of disinformation. It’s so harmful to your soul that I am deeply saddened for you.

Why do you assume Mirza Muhammad-Ali broke the Covenant? Because you believe what was written about him decades after the fact? You weren’t there, so you don’t know what really happened, do you?

The real reason for the dispute between the brothers was because Abdu’l-Baha falsely claimed infallibility for himself after Baha’u’llah made clear in the Kitab-i-Aqdas that NO ONE but God and a Messenger of God could be infallible. He also warned his followers in that book that no one could claim direct revelation from God for 1000 years after his time. Abdu’l-Baha’s claim about himself made it look like he was equal to his father and that made Muhammad-Ali think Abdu’l-Baha violated the Covenant. And once the Covenant was broken, the obligation to obey Abdu’l-Baha became irrelevant. Abdu’l-Baha was just as bound to the rules of his father as Muhammad-Ali was. Having Muhammad-Ali act as a check on Abdu’l-Baha’s absolute power was actually a wise thing for Baha’u’llah to do, in hindsight. Too bad most Baha’is, including you, have chosen to ignore the actual facts about Baha’u’llah’s own teachings. Instead, you use talking points that really don’t make sense. Trident did say:

Wouldn’t it make things clearer to just not mention Muhammad Ali, and just say that everyone was to obey Abdul Baha?

Obviously, yes! Then you said:

Clearly Baha’u’llah felt the need to address Muhammad Ali by name specifically so that there would be no doubt or question amongst everyone in the family.

Because……if Abdu’l-Baha was caught breaking the Covenant, Muhammad-Ali would have the right to challenge him by the authority given to him by both the Kitab-i-Aqdas and the Kitab-i-Ahd. And THAT’S WHAT HE DID!

And as for this final claim of yours:

Later in Abdul’Baha’s ministry, Muhammad Ali went as far as trying to have Abdul’Baha crucified by the Ottomans.

That’s absurd! And when did the Ottoman Empire ever crucify people?

It’s only natural for Shoghi Effendi after being made Abdu’l-Baha’s successor to demonize Muhammad-Ali to justify what was done. Therefore, his book God Passes By is not credible. It’s like Joseph Stalin demonizing Leon Trotsky after Stalin became the Soviet dictator, even though Trotsky was also a loyal Communist.

_____________________

The next day after I made that comment, I discovered that FrenchBread had blocked me and my comment had been downvoted by several people. Such pathetic cowardice! But that’s what happens when Haifan Baha’is can’t control the conversation like they can in r/bahai! They run away!

Wahid Azal Disgraces Himself Again.

Posted on by

Wahid Azal has a long history of picking stupid fights with people just to pump up his hyperinflated ego. This week, he did it again to one of my exBaha’i allies.

Response to u/SuccessfulCorner2512 from BAYAN

He was referring to this:

Universal Peace Quotes by 20th Century from exbahai

Where the following comments were made:

SuccessfulCorner2512
It’s difficult to understand that view, to be honest. If I were to rank the Baha’i figures in terms of harmful beliefs, the Bab would top it by some margin, followed by Baha’u’llah (though the future potential for harm is greater for BH). The Bab caused anarchy and bloodshed for several years, and when given a viable plan to stop the bloodshed, he replied that the blood was like fertiliser for the soil. He advocated beliefs so deeply fanatical that we can find no parallel outside recent extremist religious movements such as ISIS, e.g. taking possessions away from non-believers to give to believers, burning books, and many other despicable, evil, and ludicrous teachings.

The notion that God would “manifest” on Earth and tell us to burn books and kill non-believers, as the Bab did, makes me shudder. The Bab was definitely one of the evilest men in recent Persian history.

________________

trident765
Unitarian Baha’i

I’m not too concerned with the Bab’s teachings on violence since Baha’u’llah came later and banned holy war and abrogated the burning of books. So it is no longer an important question if the Bab taught violence. In any case, there have been times in history where violence was justified (e.g. pre-Islamic Arabia).

______________________

SuccessfulCorner2512
So God endorsed the burning of books and homicide in 1844 and changed his mind in 1863. Fickle isn’t he.
__________________
Then someone barged in to attack SuccessfulCorner.
Charming-Jacket-7672
Wahid Azal sockpuppet

What is your evidence that the Babis endorsed burning books and homicide, you shameless IR hack? Tell us again how many leftists Khomeini ordered executed without trial at the tail end of the war with Iraq that you so-and-sos started.

___________________

Charming-Jacket-767

Wahid Azal sockpuppet

The Bab caused anarchy and bloodshed for several years,

This is IRI state propaganda and mullah nonsense articulated by the same people who literally created anarchy in Iran during 1978-9 to seize power by force and murder millions. No such anarchy was created in Iran by the Babis. They were pushed by a corrupt system, and so rightfully took a stance of defensive jihad against it. Proto-ISIS was the Ayatollah Khomeini and the system you truck for, basiji-e-koon kesh!

____________________

I recognized this user as another account being used by Wahid Azal, so I deleted the comments and reported them to the other mods of r/exbahai, causing him to be banned again.

SuccessfulCorner then went to the new post Azal made in his own subreddit.

SuccessfulCorner2512

Wahid, I’d be happy to debate you if you’d be happy to tone down the obtuse language and use paragraphs.

Now, tell me more about yourself. You identify as a Babi but not a Baha’i?

___________________

wahidazal66
Bayānī

You don’t know who I am? Some of the people of Hot Air (أهل هباء) (i.e. our terminology for bahais first coined by Subh-i-Azal) consider me to be enemy #1.

Now, you have made a series of false assertions that come straight out of the textbooks of IR state propaganda regarding the Babi period. Can you support what you say?

Let’s start here. You say:

“The Bab caused anarchy and bloodshed for several years, and when given a viable plan to stop the bloodshed, he replied that the blood was like fertiliser for the soil. “

Besides being a lame, ahistorical and revisionist apology for Qajar absolutism and the unchecked power of their clerical allies of the time, pray tell, where exactly did the Primal Point say, “blood was like fertiliser for the soil“? Source?

Besides other things, the argument you are making above is a pro-statist argument. First, you are rationalizing the authoritarianism and corruption of the Qajar state and clergy. Second, you are thoroughly whitewashing the events of the time. Third, you have not even factored in what the Qajar state and clergy did to push the Babis into open revolt against it. In other words, your argument possesses no causality and attempts to represent the Babi Revolution as a sort of sui generis violent uprising with the state and clergy as its “innocent victims” – LOL! – who did nothing to bring it upon themselves! Again, these are the sorts of fallacies and whitewashes the IRI and its hawzavi allies regularly employ as talking points about the Babis and the era: talking points that also have a few of their sources in the intellectually dishonest Baha’i sectarian rewrite of Babi history.

Then you say: He advocated beliefs so deeply fanatical that we can find no parallel outside recent extremist religious movements such as ISIS…

The comparison to Daesh/ISIS is a regular IR talking point and is nonsense, and the claim to finding no parallel is an even bigger fallacy. But these are things IR state media and the seminary regularly (and hypocritically) claim about the Bayan.

Then without context, you state:

e.g. taking possessions away from non-believers to give to believers, burning books, and many other despicable, evil, and ludicrous teachings.

First, disenfranchising non-believers of their property in the Bayan is only a feature under a Babi/Bayani state which did not exist between 1844-1850. Second, contrary to what you and the mullahs claim, there is no provision in the Bayan for the burning or destruction of books. Instead this is a claim first dishonestly asserted by the founder of Bahaism and then parrot-fashion repeated by the mullahs as a way to misrepresent the provision and nuanced language of the sixth gate of the sixth Unity of the Bayan. In fact the 13th gate of the 9th Unity of the Bayan unequivocally commands the opposite, that under no circumstance a book or piece of writing ever be materially destroyed:

أنتم أبدًا كتابًا لا تخرقون

So what are the other despicable, evil, and ludicrous teachings here then? Your very language in misrepresenting the teachings, ordinances and history of the Bayan is the language of the IRI! Do you deny it?

____________________

SuccessfulCorner2512

·11 hr. ago

You don’t know who I am? Some of the people of Hot Air (أهل هباء) (i.e. our terminology for bahais first coined by Subh-i-Azal) consider me to be enemy #1.

Never heard of you. You appear to be the only follower of an extinct religion, which must be fun.

It’s ironic that you talk about hot air, as you’re standing alone on top of an extinct volcano (Babism), substituting its bygone life with noise and hot air of your own.

Besides being a lame, ahistorical and revisionist apology for Qajar absolutism and the unchecked power of their clerical allies of the time, pray tell, where exactly did the Primal Point say, “blood was like fertiliser for the soil”? Source?

The sentiment here was the dominant pep talk from the Bab and among the followers of the blood-stained Babi movement. There’s no shortage of examples, including Hujjat-i-Zanjani who encouraged the Babi’s with “God has always decreed that in every age the blood of the believers is to be the oil of the lamp of religion.”

Similarly, Mulla-Husayn proclaimed, “Many a soul will, in this city, shed his blood in this path. That blood will water the Tree of God, will cause it to flourish, and to overshadow all mankind”.

Of course, the Bab could have intervened to stop the needless bloodshed. The Mu’tamid of Isfahan, Imárat-i-Khurshíd, approached the Bab with a plan which included arranging the marriage of the Bab to a sister of the Shah. The Bab replied “Not by the means which you fondly imagine will an almighty Providence accomplish the triumph of His Faith. Through the poor and lowly of this land, by the blood which these shall have shed in His path, will the omnipotent Sovereign ensure the preservation and consolidate the foundation of His Cause.”

Of course, none of this happened. They all died in vain for an evil and worthless cause.

First, disenfranchising non-believers of their property in the Bayan is only a feature under a Babi/Bayani state which did not exist between 1844-1850.

Shame on you, and shame on this disgusting false religion!

The theocratic state envisioned by the Bab was one characterized by a strange dualism of wickedness and stupidity. You acknowledged above an example of the unspeakably wicked vision of the Bab. Examples of his unspeakably stupid teachings include Babis writing the 95 names of God in henna on their bodies after a bath, reciting 700 Bayanic verses daily, not keeping over 19 (wahid) books, and many others, but I’ll spare you the embarrassment. The Bab’s obsession with the number 19 was clearly an expression of mental illness. He even foretold a time when “even the pens on the pencase shall be arranged according to the number wahid (19)”.

As for your comments on the response of the state, let us be absolutely clear: there is no government on Earth that would allow a new group of religious fanatics to establish such an evil and dystopic society as that envisioned by the Bab.

_________________

Wahid’s response showed he had been insincere in wanting any real debate.

wahidazal66 
Bayānī

ROFLMAO! That’s it? That’s all you got. Tsk tsk tsk…

Let’s get something straight, by your uncritical, unnuanced and totally shambolic ahistorical state propaganda sloganeering of a response (that is utterly full of sh*t from start to finish like everyone and everything associated with that regime) – merely repeating parrot fashion the same trite BS of IR state propaganda – you reveal yourself exactly as being what I say you are: an openly transparent propagandist and shill full of crap working for the Islamic Republic of Iran just here littering reddit and Wikipedia with their trash. You opine:

“God has always decreed that in every age the blood of the believers is to be the oil of the lamp of religion.”

The sentiment and words come directly from Shi’ite hadith. That you have a problem with it just shows your ignorance regarding your own sources. Then comes the real holler:

“Many a soul will, in this city, shed his blood in this path. That blood will water the Tree of God, will cause it to flourish, and to overshadow all mankind”.

You are citing a Baha’ i source, the Dawn Breakers, where Shoghi Effendi is literally putting words into the mouths of the protagonists for dramatic effect. We don’t even accept the legitimacy of that source. Find me something comparable in nuqtat’ul-kaf. Be that as it may, let’s assume for argument’s sake he said it: again, such wording and sentiments are replete throughout Shi’ite sources which the Babis merely echoed and pericoped. Your so-called dajjaal-imam Khomeini went on the pulpit in May 1979 in front of cameras and encouraged people to get themselves martyred and spill their own blood after the assassination of Mottahhari. Hypocrisy much?

And here is where your total ignorance and bias really reveals itself:

Examples of his unspeakably stupid teachings include Babis writing the 95 names of God in henna on their bodies after a bath, reciting 700 Bayanic verses daily, not keeping over 19 (wahid) books, and many others, but I’ll spare you the embarrassment. The Bab’s obsession with the number 19 was clearly an expression of mental illness.

Actually, it is writing allahumma (O God) for men with henna once (and in the baths) and al-rahman (the Compassionate) for women once (and in the baths). 95x is the bare minimum number of times a daily dhikr is to be recited. 700 is the number that the dhikr Allahu Azhar is to be recited. 19 is the number of the Unity (wahid) as well as the numerical value of Existence (wujud) in the science of the letters, not to mention the precise number of letters in the bismillah. If you call it mental illness, perhaps you should also call your dajjaal so-called imam one too since he too was enamored by the science of the letters and numbers and demonstrates it in his commentaries on al-Fatiha, the works of Hamza Fanari and Sadruddin Qunawi, etc. Your ignorance, animus and bias towards the the Primal Point and the Babis is so profound that it thoroughly unmasks you as a shill because for all their own unbelievable ignorance no bahai – whether enrolled or ex – would ever utter the kind of garbled, ignorant BS as you have here.

Then you say:

Of course, the Bab could have intervened to stop the needless bloodshed. The Mu’tamid of Isfahan, Imárat-i-Khurshíd, approached the Bab with a plan which included arranging the marriage of the Bab to a sister of the Shah. The Bab replied “Not by the means which you fondly imagine will an almighty Providence accomplish the triumph of His Faith. Through the poor and lowly of this land, by the blood which these shall have shed in His path, will the omnipotent Sovereign ensure the preservation and consolidate the foundation of His Cause.”

Again, you have your chronology completely garbled while also citing a BS source. While the Primal Point was in Isfahan and under the protection of Manuchehr Khan Mu’tamid-ad-Dawlih, the Georgian, who was the Point’s devotee, there was no bloodshed. So whatever words Shoghi Effendi has put into the mouth of the Point, it is a figment of his own imagination. The bloodshed begins 18 months after He left Isfahan. Be that as it may, you are blaming the Primal Point for refusing a royal bribe? You are a piece of work, but quite predictable for the IR/hawzavi types who are literally willing to give fellatio to anyone who even symbolically supports them, whatever the cost, like Khamenei is to Putin ATM. One recent name comes to mind as to what utter clowns you vilayatis are on that score: Catherine Shakdam!

Your incessant comparison of the Babis to Daesh/ISIS is the dead giveaway that you are a regime hack since it is one of the most notable and regular talking points of the regime. Hasan Ershad keeps repeating it parrot fashion. Every other regime polemicist has been saying exactly the same thing over and over again. Your alter ego u/Investigator919 has been saying this stuff like a broken record himself, and every time he has been challenged and shown the evidence that his assertion is a lie, he censors or runs away – and later comes back saying the same thing again. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is a regime hack! That gullible fools like DH can’t see it is because, well, they are gullible fools being played like fiddles by you devils. But not everyone is a mentally ill, attention-seeking gullible fool like DH is.

That said, you and those viciously malevolent ignoramuses like you are a decisive argument as to why the Babis should’ve slaughtered every single last one of you hawzavis without mercy to the last man, woman and child without pulling a single punch. If they had, there wouldn’t have been a Khomeinist state in Iran for the past 44 years with an estimated and cumulative number of 3-4+ million Iranians murdered by it. This generation won’t be making the same mistake again.

In conclusion, you say you’ve never heard of me? Your alternative handle u/Investigator919 very much has. Hear this then, Basiji-e-oghdei: nice try, a$$h*le, but surely you don’t think people are really that dumb to not be on to you. Fuck off now back to your cubicle in Qom, or run along keep pretending you are some exbahai living in the UK and no one notices – when you aren’t any such thing!

Consider this having wiped the floor with your degenerate backside. So go now and cry to your little know-nothing, pedo Texan puppet, Gomer, to comfort his fellow degenerate because my argument opening this post stands unassailable like the Rock of Gibraltar with you duffuses incapable of refuting it.

سبزى پلو با ماهى، كس ننت بسيجى

The designations “DH” and “Gomer” refer to me. He doesn’t dare use my full name (Dale Husband) and clearly link it to my screen name (Seeker_Alpha1701) because he knows that would violate reddit rules and I could get him suspended over it.

Meanwhile, I noticed the post by Azal and crossposted it to r/exbahai

A defense of the Bab from exbahai

And made my own comments:

Seeker_Alpha1701

Ex-Baha’i Unitarian Universalist

Since I am probably banned from r/BAYAN and would never go in there anyway:

The Bab claimed to be the return of the 12th Imam. That claim was forever debunked by his death…..HE WASN’T SUPPOSED TO BE MARTYRED! But the influence of Christianity enabled Babis to later believe the Bab willingly died for the Cause of God just as Jesus had done. Google “sunk cost fallacy” to understand this appearant shift in their thinking.

Yes, the Babis DID attempt to overthrow the Persian government by violence once the Shah refused to convert to the Babi Faith, because the Iman Mahdi was expected to overthrow ALL the enemies of the Cause of God. Wahid Azal is flat out lying if he denies the fuking obvious.

_______________________

Seeker_Alpha1701

Ex-Baha’i Unitarian Universalist

an audience of mostly ‘vanilla and milk-toast’ Anglo-American liberals of ‘Unitarian Universalist’ mold

It is hilarious that he used to call me (an American of European descent and, yes, a Unitarian Universalist) a racist, while he himself spits out such blatantly bigoted crap like that, clearly aimed at me. Who does he think he is?!

He needs to get a dictionary. And sessions with a psychiatrist. He has absolutely no business telling others about racism. #hypocrite

_________________

Seeker_Alpha1701

Ex-Baha’i Unitarian Universalist

And here’s another damning example of Wahid Azal totally misrepresenting the Bab’s teachings in a desperate attempt to make the Bab look better than he was:

https://www.reddit.com/r/exbahai/comments/cxdsax/answering_investigator919s_disinfo_part_1/

Gaslighting 101.

_____________________

Seeker_Alpha1701

Ex-Baha’i Unitarian Universalist

Over there:

SuccessfulCorner2512

Wahid, I’d be happy to debate you if you’d be happy to tone down the obtuse language and use paragraphs.

Now, tell me more about yourself. You identify as a Babi but not a Baha’i?

wahidazal66

You don’t know who I am? Some of the people of Hot Air (i.e. our terminology for bahais) identify me as enemy #1.

Now, you have made a series of assertions that come straight out of the textbooks of IR state propaganda regarding the Babi period. Can you support what you say?

_______

identify me as enemy #1.

I seriously doubt that, since you are not a government official in Iran or some other country known to have persecuted Baha’is. You are just some cultist screaming across the internet.

you have made a series of assertions that come straight out of the textbooks of IR state propaganda regarding the Babi period.

Isn’t THAT itself a wild assertion? Don’t ask him to support his claims while you never can support YOURS.

____________________

Seeker_Alpha1701

Ex-Baha’i Unitarian Universalist

Wahid has edited his earlier comment, perhaps thinking I wouldn’t notice and react to it. It is now up to u/SuccessfulCorner2512 to respond to his challenge. Specifically:

  1. Where did the Bab say that “blood was like fertilizer for the soil” in reference to his opponents in Persia?

  2. Is it really appropriate to compare the Babi movement in the 1840s to ISIS? Based on what facts?

___________________

SuccessfulCorner2512
I’ll cross-post here in case he deletes it:
(The long comment he made at Azal over there)
_______________________
Seeker_Alpha1701

Ex-Baha’i Unitarian Universalist

Oh, I’m sure he won’t delete your reply, but he will resort to personal insults, lies, and mental gymnastics that rival anything Baha’is have ever done. That’s what he is notorious for and why he was banned from here years ago.

_______________________

Seeker_Alpha1701

Ex-Baha’i Unitarian Universalist

Confirmed!

(The long comment Azal made with references to me…..that were added in an edit later)

Google Translate makes that last Persian passage to say:

Vegetable rice with fish, you won’t like it.

Whatever that means.

SuccessfulCorner then reported to me that Azal banned him from r/BAYAN. LOL!

BTW, it’s interesting that Azal uses the same arguments to make the Bab’s lunacy more palatable to Western audiences that Baha’is do, and Baha’is have done so much to spread knowledge of and belief in the Bab around the world, yet Azal hates Baha’is. That’s like Christians hating Jews despite Jesus himself being Jewish!

Another note: Dismissing arguments against the credibility of the Bab as Iranian state propaganda is a form of the ad hominem fallacy. Historical facts with clear and consistent documentation and logical consistency are what matter, not where the facts came from. That’s why I used logic and my understanding of Shia Muslim teachings to debunk the Bab’s and Wahid Azal’s claims. I would do that even though I am an atheist and even if Iran had a secular government.

Just for fun, here’s a song by the rock band Ghost:

A Challenge Leads to a Peaceful Resolution

Posted on by

While exploring reddit, I discovered another Baha’i subreddit I had never seen before:

https://www.reddit.com/r/BabandBahaullah/

This community will be to discuss the revelations and ministries of the Bab and Baha’u’llah, use their teachings as primary sources for discussion, and find pathways to enable positive social change. Please abide by the rules and show loving kindness for all.

Then I saw this:

Ask Anything Thread from BabandBahaullah

Anything, I wondered? So I decided to challenge the subreddit’s creator.

Seeker_Alpha1701

What do you consider to be valid proofs of the Bab and of Baha’u’llah?

What would make you reject at least one of them?

____________________

Bahamut_19
I am incapable of proving God exists. How could I ever prove something came from God? This is the claim of the Bab, Baha’u’llah, and others.
Why do I accept their claims? For the same reason I continue to believe in God despite the incapability to currently prove God exists? It is based on faith, grounded in a feeling I feel within myself.
There are many things in existence we take for granted but have no proof of. We have evidences of their existence, but no actual proof. I’m ok with that.
Since I do not require any proofs for that which I feel within me, the only thing that would change my perspective is if my feeling were to change.

________________

That was NOT anything like I expected, since I was used to seeing arrogant talking points from fanatics like DavidBinOwen.

Seeker_Alpha1701
Your honesty is commendable. This is what separates you from bigoted extremists.
____________________
 
Bahamut_19
What had changed your perspective regarding the Bab?
__________________
Yikes! I guess I should have seen that coming! But I decided I would not hold back from being direct in answering the question.
 
Seeker_Alpha1701
Several things…..

  1. The Bayani claim that the Bab was NOT the forerunner of Baha’u’llah, but was supposed to bring in a new age for humanity on his own. Baha’u’llah was said to be a usurper.

  2. The Shia Muslim claim that the Bab’s claims about himself were debunked the moment he was killed. He should have defeated his enemies instead.

  3. The Sunni Muslim claim that the twelve Imams Shiites revere were not of any special status. The Bab was supposed to be the return of the 12th Imam.

  4. The atheist argument that if God cannot be proven to exist, then claims by Prophets supposedly sent by God are irrelevant.

But my actual rejection of the Baha’i Faith in 2004 had nothing to do with the Bab. That’s another issue altogether.

_______________________

Bahamut_19
The reason why I asked about the Bab is because if you were a Baha’i, you had to have believed in the Bab during the time you were a Baha’i. As you express yourself to be an atheist (assuming by point 4), your points 1-3 actually wouldn’t matter since the Bayani, Shia, and Sunni people do believe in God. Any claim any of those 3 groups would make would be irrelevant if you also believe in point 4.

What happened in 2004 which made you question that which the Bab had taught?

___________________

Why was he fixated on the Bab, I wondered. Again, I was direct in my response.

Seeker_Alpha1701

It was the general perception that if the Baha’i Faith was failing, the Bab had also failed, since Baha’u’llah was a follower of the Bab before starting the Baha’i Faith. I still believed that Baha’u’llah was supposed to be the one the Bab had foretold (thinking they knew each other, since they were both contemporaries and countrymen).

And if the Baha’i Faith had failed, since it was supposed to be the Religion of God for this age, God himself had failed.

Then I thought, “Maybe there is no God and that would explain why religions around the world are so messed up.”

And once I reached that conclusion, I never looked back. I rejected ALL God-centered religions.

_____________________

Bahamut_19

I understand why you feel as you do. As Bahau’llah (I think) taught, if religion becomes the source of fanaticism and yields no more fruit, it is best if it no longer exists.

Also, it is extremely difficult to see any faith or religion without the clergy and the organization. The Baha’i Faith has spent so much effort making it seem the organization IS the faith, that it is nearly impossible for people to see the Bab or Baha’u’llah without the Faith. In the Aqdas, he does promise another Manifestation and in the Iqan, he says why. Because the people would have completely turned away from the revelation.

However, I still feel that outside of the organization, God is having effect towards the things God promised through Baha’u’llah and nearly all of this exists outside of the organization, mostly by people who have never heard of the Bab or Baha’u’llah. I particularly wish people knew the story of the Bab. His ministry deeply touches me. I do not believe He was merely a forerunner but really was the Gate and the Primal Point. He first appeared in a dream of mine in 2003, and it took me nearly 5 years to figure out that this person was real.

As of 2023, there is much much less war in the world. The entire Western Hemisphere has no nation or tribe actively fighting the other. There is a loose federation of nations, although the United Nations is far from a potential end goal. Translation services and AI is bringing us closer to a common script. Many older faiths and/or believers of those faiths have adopted many of the tenets, such as monogamy, women having more freedom in things such as how they dress, and a greater understanding that there are common truths in all of the major faiths.

I can see the argument that says these and other things are the product of human innovation, which is true. This is the path we were meant to be on. I do believe we can progress more quickly if we adhere to the teachings of God more fully, but certain things are inevitable regardless of our belief or non-belief.

With that being said, a friend and I have plans to create, independent of the Baha’i Faith, a functioning Mashiriq’ul-Adhkar in our community. The Dawning Place of (community name).

BTW, I have visited a UU church before. It seems like a good community and its good to see people of varying perspectives have a common bond. I hope they have success in their goals.

_____________________

Again, I was quote floored by the gracious nature of his comments. It was a clear example of someone “killing me with kindness”. I decided at that point this particular Baha’i was no threat to the ex-Baha’i community of reddit I was representing. So I withdrew from the discussion.

Seeker_Alpha1701
Thank you for agreeing to let me come here. This was a pleasant discussion. This is how talks on religion should always be conducted. Farewell.
 
And I moved on…..

Another fight in reddit over Rev. Todd Eklof’s publicity stunt of 2019

Posted on by

For some background, read these earlier blog entries:

https://dalehusband.com/2019/07/12/reopening-old-wounds-among-unitarian-universalists/

https://dalehusband.com/2020/02/25/a-debate-in-the-uu-subreddit-over-the-2017-hiring-controversy/

https://dalehusband.com/2020/07/19/another-call-for-unitarian-universalists-to-stop-fighting-for-consistent-racial-justice/

In reddit, my primary focus has always been debunking and opposing the Baha’i Faith, but I am also dedicated to promoting Unitarian Universalism, despite issues like that above. The occasional hypocrisy that crops up among UUs, unlike that other religion, is not a direct product of its contradictory teachings.

Continue reading →

Being Better Educated and Changing my Opinion

Posted on by

One of my basic principles of being an Honorable Skeptic is what I call the malleability of my opinions, as expressed this way:

Because I am honorable, I sometimes willingly concede points made by my opponents in debates with them. This should never be seen as a sign of weakness. When I know I am right about something, I will fight to the bitter end to support my case and discredit my opponent because in some cases I do see my battles as a struggle between light and darkness, good and evil, or ignorance and knowledge. But I am also willing at times to listen to my opponent and consider his point of view, especially if that person is known by me to be honorable. If we do not listen to others, how can we ever grow in knowledge?

In the past, I opposed the legal concept of statutory rape, thinking it an outdated and irrational one, much like laws in the past banning homosexual relations or interracial unions. But recent events have made me reconsider my position and try to understand why otherwise enlightened people would be so insistent that teens should never be allowed to have romantic and sexual relations with older partners, even of their own choosing.

Continue reading →

Confronting a Christian evangelist in YouTube

Posted on by

Watch this video:

In the comments section, this person popped up to begin preaching, proving that some Christian idiots simply don’t know when to shut up and act like adults.

do you guys really believe that nothing created everything?😂 Anyways, God loves you!😁❤
———————————————————————————————————————-
@Let’s Discuss with Eliza Well, for us, God is spirit. It doesn’t mean that you can’t see, it doesnt exist. Like “air” for example its not visible for human eyes but that doesnt mean it doesnt exist. When I look at my surroundings, seeing so much detail in everything I see..it makes it impossible for me that it just pops up out of nowhere..i mean thats “scientifically” impossible.. Well thats just my opinion on that, and I respect your opinion too.😄 Godbless!
——————————————————————————————————————–
@FHI Simple, because God is a just God.. would a just judge allow rapist, thiefs, murderers, adulteres, etc. to be free without justice?😊 In fact we are all guilty for these stuff (luke 18:19) and that is why God gave us his only son as a sacrifice for our sins because of his great love for us. (romans 6:23)Even if you dont believe, that doesn’t change his love for you. (God is the alpha and the omega, He is self existing and is not affected by time)😉 Yes, we dont deserve such kind of goodness but thats just how He is. I would glady answer if you any questions😄 hope that helps..
————————————————————————————————————————-
@FHI Do you understand the purpose of the commandments given by God? Now Imagine a world without rules..no punishments, no discipline, no consequences..would you think it would be a great world to live in where humans lives like wild, using their preference in choosing what is good for them like for ex. “It feels good so why not”. (thats what most rapist,murderers,etc. usually use it as an explanation)
—————————————————————————————————————————
@FHI Every other Religion gets you to try and save yourself like falling from a cliff and just flapping your arms hoping. In Christianity, He already did that for you. Thats the difference.. and dont even get me started on how I grew up, Im probably worse than you haha.. I was actually an athiest before. Even after my parents converted, I hated them coz For me, its just a waste of time and the “money thing” stereotype. I hated them so much but later on God saved me from having a sinful life and he is still transforming me till now.. I hope that you read everything on top coz i feel like you still don’t understand what I mean.. Open your heart brother🙂
—————————————————————————
So I decided to give this person a verbal body slam.
@TheChosenOne Official No one believes nothing created everything. At least we admit to not knowing where the universe came from. Your assumption that a god or gods must have done it omits one thing…..evidence for such creators.
—————————————————————————————————————–
Dale Husband
@TheChosenOne Official ” I was actually an athiest before….. later on God saved me from having a sinful life and he is still transforming me till now.” I doubt your claim and in any case it doesn’t matter. You were probably a terrible atheist and thus we are better off without you.
Then I nailed him to the wall with this:
The Chosen One vomited: “God is a just God.. would a just judge allow rapist, thiefs, murderers, adulteres, etc. to be free without justice?”
What about a corrupt judge who employs mass murderers, rapists and even child molesters to do his bidding?
https://dalehusband.com/2019/05/12/biblical-genocide-and-pedophilia/
Moses said, “Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.” (Numbers 31 17-18)
See you in hell, hypocrite!

Talk about shocking religious scandals!

 

A debate in the UU subreddit over the 2017 hiring controversy.

Posted on by

For some background, read these:

What integrity in leadership looks like

Stop whining about “censorship”!

A Critical Mistake in the UU World

Reopening Old Wounds Among Unitarian Universalists

Now, the issues dealt with in those blog entries are being rehashed yet again in a UU subreddit.

Continue reading →

Confronting Scott Hakala on Quora

Posted on by

Quora is a social media site where people can pose questions on all sorts of subjects and get answers from others. One of the most frequent posters on it is Scott Hakala, a Baha’i apologist.

Before I tell about my fight with him there, I must supply a bit of background.
For more than a year and a half after I made an account on reddit, Hakala, using the pseudonym “DavidBinOwen”, would often invade the ExBaha’i subreddit and relentlessly attack its members with counter arguments to things they would write. Then after wreaking havoc for a few days or weeks, he would disappear only to return weeks or months later. Things got so frustrating that Wahid Azal decided to do something to force the admin of that subreddit to deal with Hakala once and for all. So he posted these:
https://www.reddit.com/r/exbahai/comments/cnzclf/why_are_the_moderators_of_this_site_consistently/

https://www.reddit.com/r/exbahai/comments/co4u0o/beware_non_and_exbahais_of_this_subreddit/

I knew this might lead to Azal being banned from the subreddit, so to prevent that, I sent private messages to all the admin, playing “good cop” to Wahid Azal’s “bad cop”. My efforts paid off; nothing was done to Azal, but Hakala was FINALLY banned permanently from the subreddit.

Continue reading →

The Ultimate Baha’i Delusion?

Posted on by

I posted the following on reddit last week:

https://www.reddit.com/r/exbahai/comments/8ejifq/the_ultimate_bahai_delusion/

Question: What do you think is the ultimate delusion of the Baha’i Faith? There need be no “right” or “wrong” answer here, but I need some opinions on how best to deal with Baha’i apologists like a certain one that keeps invading this subreddit.

You should see the discussion that resulted!

Continue reading →

Stop whining about “censorship”!

Posted on by

With the controversy boiling over last year about white supremacy in the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) remaining unaddressed for far too long, we also must confront another thorny issue: freedom of speech.
Read this:
https://trulyopenmindsandhearts.blog/2018/02/03/sticks-stones-and-names/

We children were taught to love our country especially for its freedom of religion and speech — the freedom to be different. After all, our parents or grandparents left their homes, often in the face of persecution, to come to a new home that accepted minorities who practiced a religion other than the majority Protestantism.

In my family, just three or four years before I was born, Nazi firing squads and gas chambers had taken the lives of my father’s sister and brother, their spouses and their children. If someone occasionally called us a name, well…

Sticks and stones…

This was the land of free expression, after all.

Another phrase more elegantly sums up what I was taught about how thongs [sic] should be in the United States:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

There was one flaw then in that freedom of expression. Many of our lansmen — our fellow Jewish Americans — were being denounced as Communists. Just an accusation was enough to ruin someone life. My parents and neighbors in the 1950’s hated and feared McCarthyism. Aside from war, there wasn’t much we hated and feared as much. It was another form of persecution.

Democratic ideals and common sense ended McCarthyism, at least as it then existed. Liberals and moderates of both parties despised it.

When I entered college in 1964, my cohort was beginning its rebellion against the slow pace of civil rights and, for a minority of us, against the Vietnam war. It would be a few more years before the Vietnam protest movement went mainstream, so I had a lot of angry fists shook in my face, and I was called names. My mother worried that I was setting myself up to be a victim of a revived McCarthyism.

But I persisted. I didn’t break any laws. I didn’t commit civil disobedience. I marched in protests and spoke out, because after all this is a nation where freedom of expression prevails.

That’s why the frog in me didn’t notice the water heating up over the last 60 years until it bubbled around me last April.

I wrote a blog post objecting to the way big decisions are made by the Unitarian Universalist Association. The case in point was a controversy over the pace at which the UUA was hiring and promoting persons of color, but I didn’t express an opinion on that. Nevertheless, a lay leader of the Black Lives movement in UUism made an 18-minute video condemning me for my “fuck-shot behavior” and racism, her white ministerial ally wrote that my “abhorrent BS” was a “thinly veiled cry that the colored folks are getting uppity and need to be put back in their place, ” and that was just the beginning.

My inner frog still didn’t understand, though, how much the water had heated — how much our norms had changed. I reacted not by asking that my critics be silenced but by writing in reply. Surely, in this land of free speech and opinion anyone could read what I and my critics had to say and support my freedom of expression.

That’s when the water boiled over. The UUA removed from its Worship Web a litany I had written in 1999, which had been used as a worship resource since then. Only after I discovered it was missing did I get a reason:

Your submissions were removed because your recent public comments made it difficult for these pieces to be interpreted in the way they had been before. As our Association struggles with the nature of whiteness’ supremacy, we have to reexamine past assumptions, such as the assumption that a piece of writing can be interpreted independent of its source.

Thus spoke that most liberal of liberal religions. Words I wrote in 1999, with no reference to race, needed to be expunged so that the UUA in 2017 could have a “hard and honest conversations about racial inequity in Unitarian Universalism.” My opinions in 2017 invalidated my words of 1999.

In the 1950’s and ’60’s, it was the left that stood for freedom of expression, even if that expression might to psychological harm, like burning a draft card. Today, it’s the left that wants to stamp out micro-aggressions, like asking someone with an accent where he or she (another micro-aggression against neutral-gender folks) is originally from.

It’s the right now standing for freedom of conscience over the possible psychological harm to one group, like a baker’s option to refuse to bake and decorate a cake specifically for a gay wedding. The roles have reversed.

What really happened was that Mel Pine freely expressed his opinions about a sensitive and controversial issue among his fellow UUs, others responded in anger to him because they found his opinions offensive, and the UUA, a private religious organization, removed a piece of his writings from its website because it no longer saw a benefit to having it there, which is what it is legally allowed to do! Pine was not sent to prison, arrested by police, or even given a ticket by the police for his expressions. His blogs are still up and he is still allowed to post his ideas on Facebook too. NO ONE had his rights violated in that case. Pine doth protest too much. So do right-wing assholes like Milo Yiannopoulos of Breitbart.com infamy. He hasn’t been punished by a government either.

When people actually get fined or imprisoned for their words by the government they live under, then we should worry about freedom of speech (and the press) being denied.

free_speech

I have the right to throw off my property people who come on it making racist remarks, don’t I?

My Battle on Amazon with a Haifan Baha’i

Posted on by

This blog entry is a direct sequel to this earlier one: A Lost History of the Baha’i Faith

The book was put up for sale on Amazon.com, and just as I and Eric Stetson expected, Haifan Baha’is took notice of it and proceeded to attack it, even without bothering to read its contents.

http://www.amazon.com/Lost-History-Bahai-Faith-Progressive/dp/0692331352/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

Biased History-Perverted History
By Karl Weaver on July 13, 2015
This is NOT a good history of the Baha’i Faith. It is a very biased history. This would be comparable of the history of the message of Jesus Christ written by Judas Iscariot or by Caiaphas, the Jewish priest who organized His death sentence.
If you REALLY want a good and well authenticated history of the Baha’i Faith, you should try “Baha’u’llah & the New Era” by John Esslemont, a British citizen, or “God Passes By” by Shoghi Effendi, the grandson of the founder, who was educated
at Oxford with a particular interest in history.
Continue reading →

“Classical” Atheism vs. “Contemporary” Atheism

Posted on by

Once again, I find myself dealing with the tiresome issue of the competing definitions of Atheism. See my previous blog entries on this subject for references:

https://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2010/06/24/atheism-is-a-dogma-get-over-it/

https://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/misdefining-terms-for-purposes-of-propaganda/

https://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/make-up-your-minds-atheists/

https://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2012/09/01/richard-dawkins-is-an-agnostic/

https://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2012/10/05/is-agnostic-an-obsolete-term/

Now I learn that Aron-Ra, a fellow Texan and activist against promoting Creationist bigotry and lies in public schools, has not only accepted the “contemporary” definition of atheism, he asserts that the “classical” definition of it was a lie all along! Really??? Continue reading →

Racism among Atheists too?

Posted on by

Jen McCreight, author of the blog Blag Hag, now finds herself having to confront the ugly issue of racism among her fellow atheists after she and other women dealt so much and for so long with sexism among them. I will provide links to her blog entries in question along with excerpts from them.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2013/08/on-silencing-anger-to-silence-minority-voices/

My favorite thing to wake up to in the morning is white straight cis men insisting they get to decide who your allies are and that you should not ever get angry, but rather calmly explain basic topics to hostile questions from every person that wanders across your path as if it were your personal duty on this earth. Continue reading →

Style over Substance in the Presidential Debate

Posted on by

 

To be honest, I did not watch for very long the Presidential debate last night, because I was quite sure I would only hear what I’d already heard a great many times from reading Facebook posts and articles in news sources, hearing personal comments from friends and relatives and seeing political ads on TV. Five minutes of the debate was all I could stand, because Obama compared his economy policies to that of President Clinton before him, which I already knew about. Neither candidate impressed me much.

I was therefore surprised to learn afterwards that most people thought Romney won the debate because he was more aggressive and charismatic than Obama, never mind that before Obama became President he was known for being quite charismatic. So what happened?

I could not care less how slick a person’s presentation may look or sound if it is full of nonsense or lies. You win a debate, in my view, by doing two things: Telling the truth consistently, and having a position that treats fairly the most people possible. And by that criteria, Obama is the superior candidate. If people vote for Romney and not Obama because one of them is better at the gift of gab, why not just elect someone like Hitler, who was one of the most dynamic speakers of the 20th Century?

Related articles

 

A question of incest

Posted on by

I just got a comment from someone named Sally. Rather than approve it where it was placed, I will copy and paste it here in green, along with the identifying information on it, and attempt to respond to its  points in red.

Sally
sallyfancy@hotmail.com
200.127.106.252

I have a question for you, please don’t consider that I’m attacking you.

Usually when someone opens with something like that, he is about to make a statement that really IS an attack. 

I like how you expose ignorants and bigots in this blog, but I fail to notice something important now you’re bringing up the subject of homophobia. As a bisexual woman myself in a same-sex long term relationship, I am definitely against homophobia, and as a liberal person I condemn any kind of discrimination. I’m also agnostic, so I don’t refrain from critizing religions. So far I guess we pretty much agree in our views, but I haven’t seen you (maybe you did and I’m not aware) critizing the criminalization of consensual incest between adults.

Of course, she would equate the prohibition of incest with the prohibition of homosexuality, since both were condemned in the Bible and in all Abrahamic religions. But just because the Bible condemns something doesn’t make that thing good for atheists to accept. Unless you think atheists should also accept stealing and murder.

Please note that I’m not talking about incestuous rape or incestuous abuse of minors, only consensual incest and between consenting adults. I’m sure you’re aware that consenting adults involved in consensual incestuous relationships are going to jail, punished by archaic laws because of a victimless crime like this.

I wonder if she saw my blog entries about prostitution. But even prostitution is not the same as incest, just as homosexuality is not the same as incest.

I’m not incestuous myself nor planning to ever be, but seeing how a good number of people is threatened with a long imprisonment (until 14 years in Canada, for example) only for loving a person of their family causes me too much indignation, even more noting that almost none of these self-avowed liberal activists seem to care or speak in their favour.

Loving a family member? Sorry, but in fact I do not equate “love” with having sex. If you do, I think you have some serious issues.

Please, if you really hate hypocrisy and bigotry this much, I encourage you to show support to consenting incestuous adults, they deserve to live and love in freedom.

Hypocrisy is when you profess a system of values that you fail to live up to in practice. Since I have never professed support for legalizing incest, I would not be a hypocrite. As for bigotry, that charge would make sense only if it could be proven that incest was something as fundamental to human nature as skin color. All the evidence indicates just the opposite. Unlike homosexuals, who are compelled by their nature to engage in sexual relations with members of their own gender, there is no evidence that people who practice incest are obeying some natural instinct. In most cases, there are plenty of other possible mates for the incestuous partners to avoid having sex with each other.

And I beg you not to perpetuate the offensive “deformed offspring” myth, deformed is NEVER an aceptable [sic] word to qualify a human being. 

Why not? It’s only descriptive of the person’s physical nature. It’s not a racial slur like the N-word is for black people of African descent.

Yes, disabled children may be born from incestuous couples, but most of consenting incestuous couples are NOT interested in having offspring and even if they can’t help loving a relative they’re consciously against inbreeding, besides sex is not longer only for procreation purposes (my partner and I are both women and still have sex, that’s pretty much self-explanatory), and contraceptives and sterilization exist for a good reason.

You earlier called the issue of “deformed offspring” a myth, then admitted it is not so. It seems interesting that you try to make incest more palatable by claiming that incestuous couples need not have children, but in fact there are cases of such couples who do, and often those children ARE deformed. Indeed, ONE such child resulting from such a union would be one too many!

Consensual incest between adults cause no harm to anybody, people shouldn’t be punished for loving or having sex with another consenting adult. Please, help us end the hatred and spread the tolerance, it’s very much appreciated.

Incest is harmful because it limits genetic diversity in the offspring that result from it, and thus it negates the most obvious evolutionary benefits of sexual reproduction, indeed making it pointless.  The accumulation of recessive genetic mutations results in a inbred line being weakened over time. Consider this sad case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding#Royalty_and_nobility

  • One of the most famous example of a genetic disorder aggravated by royal family intermarriage was the House of Habsburg, which inmarried particularly often. Famous in this case is the Habsburger (Unter) Lippe (Habsburg jaw/Habsburg lip/”Austrian lip”) (mandibular prognathism), typical for many Habsburg relatives over a period of six centuries.[24] The condition progressed through the generations to the point that the last of the Spanish Habsburgs, Charles II of Spain, could not properly chew his food.[25]
  • Besides the jaw deformity, Charles II also had a huge number of other genetic physical, intellectual, sexual, and emotional problems. It is speculated that the simultaneous occurrence in Charles II of two different genetic disorders: combined pituitary hormone deficiency and distal renal tubular acidosis could explain most of the complex clinical profile of this king, including his impotence/infertility which in the last instance led to the extinction of the dynasty.

And it’s not just humans that are affected badly by inbreeding. Animals like dogs in Japan have also suffered as well!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/28/business/28dogs.html?pagewanted=all

Rare dogs are highly prized here, and can set buyers back more than $10,000. But the real problem is what often arrives in the same litter: genetically defective sister and brother puppies born with missing paws or faces lacking eyes and a nose.

There have been dogs with brain disorders so severe that they spent all day running in circles, and others with bones so frail they dissolved in their bodies. Many carry hidden diseases that crop up years later, veterinarians and breeders say.

Kiyomi Miyauchi was heartbroken to discover this after one of two Boston terriers she bought years ago suddenly collapsed last year into spasms on the living room floor and died. In March, one of its puppies died the same way; another went blind.

Ms. Miyauchi stumbled across a widespread problem here that is only starting to get attention. Rampant inbreeding has given Japanese dogs some of the highest rates of genetic defects in the world, sometimes four times higher than in the United States and Europe. 

<snip>

Hirofumi Sasaki, a pet store owner in the western city of Hiroshima, has seen so many defective dogs that last year he converted an old bar into a hospice to care for them. So far he has taken in 32 dogs, though only 12 have survived.

One is Keika, a deaf 1-year-old female dachshund with eyes that wander aimlessly. Her breeder was originally selling her for about $7,500 because she is half-white, a rare trait in dachshunds.

“That is an unnatural color, like a person with blue skin,” Mr. Sasaki said.

The breeder told Mr. Sasaki that he had bred a dog with three generations of offspring — in human terms, first with its daughter, then a granddaughter and then a great-granddaughter — until Keika was born. The other four puppies in the litter were so hideously deformed that they were killed right after birth. 

Therefore, my decision is that I will NOT support legalizing incest. I don’t want to see any more people like Charles II or those unfortunate puppies in the future.

The ultimate blow to global warming denialism

Posted on by

Denialists are not interested in truth or consistency of any kind. Instead, they have a dogma and an agenda and will take advantage of any arguments that serve these things, even if those arguments don’t really fit together. Nowhere does this become more obvious than in the issue of global warming.

John Cook, who runs the website Skeptical Science, has assembled a long list of contradictions made by global warming denialists. With this, he and other contributers totally wreck what little credibility these political and pseudoscientific hacks ever had!

http://www.skepticalscience.com/contradictions.php

 

Rebecca Watson vs Stef McGraw

Posted on by

The controversy over “Elevatorgate” just keeps getting more riotous. Now Rebecca Watson has gotten into a catfight with another “freethinking” blogger and student named Stef McGraw.

First, McGraw attacked Rebecca for her supposed hypocrisy:

http://www.unifreethought.com/2011/06/fursdays-wif-stef-32.html

Someone who truly abides by feminist principles would, in my view, have to react in the same manner were the situation reversed; if a woman were to engage a man in the same way, she would probably be creeping him out and making him uncomfortable and unfairly sexualizing him, right? But of course no one ever makes that claim, which is why I see Watson’s comment as so hypocritical.

If you really want social equality for women, which is what feminism is, why not apply the same standards to men and women, and stop demonizing men for being sexual beings?

Continue reading →

Why peace activists (and critics of religion) sometimes fail

Posted on by

I just read something interesting in this article:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/4749/why_liberal_religious_arguments_fail/

I participated for a time in a Los Angeles-area peace and justice group, an interfaith group filled with good and righteous people. Following the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, it was decided that we should be reaching out to area congregations to ask if we could provide them with guest speakers who would then tell the members of those congregations just how wrong and pointless the war and occupation was. There were few takers. Meanwhile, but on a separate track, this same group was establishing relationships with returning soldiers and military family members who opposed the war. I suggested that we might ask congregations whether they would care to hear from a service member or a military family member, someone who would simply tell their story, rather than hear from one of the well-briefed peaceniks. My suggestion was rejected, as this would have deprived the peaceniks of a chance to sound off about how wrong (how very wrong) George W. Bush and Don Rumsfeld had been in regard to principles of international law. I withdrew from the group shortly thereafter.

Continue reading →

Keith Olbermann responds to a stupid “tweet”.

Posted on by
christine espinosa
aller3 christine espinosa
@KeithOlbermann Tell you idiot friend O’Donnell that we will fight socialism. Nothing in life is free. Social programs have failed dumb dumb
Keith Olbermann
KeithOlbermann Keith Olbermann
@aller3 Kindly send the government the tolls you didn’t pay on all free highways. Also all of your relatives’ social security, Medicare etc
Make of that what you will.

A denialist makes seductive, but hollow, claims

Posted on by

Check out this comment at the Intersection blog at the Discover Magazine website:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/08/18/will-you-shut-up-just-a-second-will-you-stop-shouting-hard-lessons-in-science-communication/#comment-67676

39.   Steve Says:
August 19th, 2010 at 4:52 pm

AGW proponents argue from a faith in models, implying that we can only postulate what will happen because a real experiment cannot be run. Sadly for AGW proponents, Earth has run the massive atmospheric CO2 experiment. Proxy data shows that atmospheric CO2 has been 10 – 20 times what it is today. The result? The planet survived. It even thrived. Was it warmer than today? For certain periods, yes, it was. But, for other periods, it was colder. These facts alone should be enough to educate an open mind that CO2 is NOT strongly correlated to temperature and catastrophic global warming is impossible.

Lest one think that the proxy data cannot be trusted, we have evidence within recent history of the same result. First, however, a primer. It is well known that temperature follows a logarithmic function in the presence of rising CO2 levels. That is, temperature rises more at a lower CO2 range increase (say, from 100ppm to 150ppm) than at a higher CO2 range increase (say, from 300ppm to 350ppm) . From roughly 1940 to present, CO2 has been increasing. If AGW theory is correct (i.e. CO2 is THE major variable controlling global temperature), then there should be a strong, logarithmic correlation between temperatures and rising CO2 levels after 1940. That is, a larger temperature increase between, say, 1940 – 1950 as opposed to 1990 – 2000. What we see, though, is that global temperature actually decreased slightly between roughly 1940 – 1970 (culminating in the ice age scare) before beginning a roughly 3 decade increase (culminating in the AGW scare). In addition, over half of the global temperature increase of the 20th century occurred BEFORE 1940, when CO2 levels were fairly constant. An open mind that follows data to arrive at a conclusion would rightly conclude that CO2 is NOT a major variable in global temperature.

Frankly, I don’t care if any kind of cap-and-trade system passes. Energy use will not dissipate. And since fossil fuel holds the most energy density, it will be used. Cap-and-trade will simply increase the cost of everything. People will either: 1) demand more money for their labor in order to maintain their standard of living or 2) get poorer. In the period of economic instability, several individuals and companies will get VERY rich.

By 2100, CO2 will have increased even more. If the trend of the past 200 years continues, global temperatures will increase steadily with 20 -40 year modulations that follow the warm and cold phases of the oceans. Our understanding of bioshpere mechanics will have increased immensely and enough data will have been gathered to know that CO2 is not the boogeyman that grant-seeking “scientists” thought it was. If fossil fuel usage is not declining, it will be much more costly (even in inflation-adjusted terms). If we are smart, nuclear energy will be much more abundant. If we are even smarter, we will have found a way to reprocess the waste for re-use. Energy storage technology will have increased to the point that wind and solar energy can provide a steady stream of power around the clock. They will, however, still be a niche technologies.

Our great-grandchildren will look back on this time and wonder what the f*#k we were thinking and curse us for putting politics ahead of common sense and sound science.

First, the models Steve refers to are based on the physical and chemical laws that govern all of matter. If you wish to debunk those models, you must show either that the models are incomplete or that the laws are incorrect. He has not.

Second, Steve does not specify when the CO2 levels were 10 or 20 times higher than today. Indeed, we can be certain that the Earth’s atmosphere was full of CO2 about four billion years ago, just as Venus’ atmosphere is today. The critical difference between the two planets is that Venus is closer to the Sun, and it has no oceans like Earth does to absorb some of the CO2 and lock it away. It also does not have life, including plants to absorb even more CO2. The reason the Sun did not burn us up hundreds of millions of years ago when the CO2 levels were much higher than today was because the Sun was also much less luminous, as you would expect with a star that had less helium and more hydrogen in its core (Helium is at least four times denser than hydrogen and helium is also what hydrogen fuses into to produce its sunlight. Denser concentrations of gas in the cores of stars will indeed be hotter. Strange that Steve overlooked that). And at most geologic periods,  Earth WAS warmer than today and the sea levels were much higher. But that was not a problem because our civilization did not exist. The concern today is that our civilization is so highly adapted to the specific global climate of the late 20th Century that ANY significant deviation from that will do great damage to that civilization.

Third, Steve ignores that fossil fuels are nonrenewable and when they begin to grow scarce, the price of them will skyrocket anyway. Indeed, the best way to lower the price of fossil fuels at present is to REDUCE DEMAND FOR THEM!  Which is a compelling reason to switch to renewable sources; the only reason we haven’t yet is because the fossil fuel companies have rigged our so-called “free market” economy to support their perpetual dominance. That has to be stopped, or we will end up with fossil fuel companies only getting richer and richer at the expense (literally) of the rest of us, global warming or no global warming. That’s why we need governments to step in and use some kind of force to stop them.

Fourth, CO2 is not THE only factor in climate change. The drop in global temperatures between 1940 and 1970 could have been a temporary halt in global warming, not a sign of cooling, due to factors such as the advent of nuclear energy which largely replaced fossil fuels for a time before accidents like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl lessened public support for the use of nuclear fuels, making fossil fuels more popular once again. And since we have had reliable CO2 measurements only since the 1950s, we cannot say for certain what global CO2 levels were prior to that decade. So his claim that “over half of the global temperature increase of the 20th century occurred BEFORE 1940, when CO2 levels were fairly constant,” is unfounded.

Steve is not open-minded at all. He is an idiot who beleives the denialist claims without testing them, as I have.