FAITH OR REALITY – CHICKEN OR EGG?

The Egyptian crisis and its fundamentalist undertones makes it timely for us to examine faith’s compatibility with reality.
I’ve never appreciated the modern euphemism for religions – “faith-based organisations”. I once read an excellent book (More Than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell) which sought to prove the resurrection by evidence. The circumstantial evidence presented included details of the subsequent lifestyles of those claiming to have seen the risen Christ. To a man, they abandoned worldly gain, lived to spread Jesus’ teachings and endured variegated injustices and abuses including torture, ignominy and death when their simple alternative was to renounce the resurrection.
I was convinced. To this day, my unswerving belief in Christ’s resurrection is based on the evidence presented to me in that book. My spiritual convictions aren’t “faith-based” but evidence-based or, better put, reality-based. I prefer to begin with reality and work backwards to its divine purpose than to begin, like the Church, with dogma then used to bully reality to simulate dogma.
I was reminded of Man’s quirky insistence on compelling unnatural behaviour in the name of Dogma by a highly inflammatory internet article regarding an alleged Muslim plot for world domination. Its anonymous author includes a clever mixture of researched fact and outrageous hype certain, whatever the author’s intention, to exacerbate Christian intolerance of Islam.
So we must view the contents of this provocative piece with caution. It begins with a report, datelined November 2001, that “Swiss investigators will search the home of Youssef Nada, the leader of Al Taqwa Bank, a Swiss bank that had just been shut down by the U.S and the U.N. for alleged ties to Al-Qaeda and Hamas……….” Despite many subsequent postings to the web-site, this cute piece of crystal-ball gazing is never confirmed nor is the prediction following that “In January 2002, Nada will announce that the Al Taqwa Bank is shutting down, due to bad publicity after the raids. He will maintain that he and his organization are completely innocent.”
The somewhat more reliable New York Times reported (November 8, 2001): “President Bush announced an international effort today to destroy two financial networks that American officials said had long been suspected of having ties to the Al-Qaeda terrorist organization. The announcement came as law enforcement officials in the United States and Europe carried out raids to disrupt their operations.” One of these “financial networks” was Al Taqwa. President Bush said “Al Taqwa….raise[s] funds for Al Qaeda. They manage, invest and distribute those funds.”
Unlike the anonymous internet report, The New York Times published comment from Youssef Nada as follows: “Youseff (sic) Nada, a principal of Al Taqwa, was interviewed by The New York Times early this week……and he denied any involvement in terrorist activities.”
Neither U.S nor U.N agencies closed Al Taqwa. Nada was temporarily detained after the Swiss raid but subsequently released. Eventually, on August 2, 2010 (no public fanfare), the U.N. Security Council removed Al Taqwa from a list of entities and individuals associated with Al-Qaeda. No member of Al Taqwa’s Board of Directors has ever been charged with any criminal offence by any Government including the U.S.A. Much has been made, by U.S. Authorities, of the transparent fact that two Al Taqwa shareholders are family members of Osama Bin Laden but, not only is that not of itself a crime, it’s a well-known fact that Osama was the black sheep of his family and so there’s no reason, other than hype, to make anything of this apparent connection.
The above background is to assist readers to analyze what follows and try to separate fact from hype. In the raid on Nada’s Swiss home, a document was found entitled “The Project”. Nada claimed not to know the Author’s identity or how it came to be in his home (lol).
The document records an alleged plot by The Muslim Brotherhood to rule the world. The Muslim Brotherhood, an Egyptian reaction to political and social injustice and British imperial rule, was founded in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna, a schoolteacher, to promote traditional sharia law and social renewal based on an Islamic ethos of altruism and civic duty. The organisation initially focused on educational and charitable work, but quickly became a major political force in the Egyptian nationalist movement to restore broken links between tradition and modernity.
It’s alleged that a military wing was added circa 1939 and The Brotherhood’s links to the Nazis from the early 1930s are reliably confirmed and documented. During the war, it assisted with agitation against the British, espionage and sabotage, and widely distributed Hitler’s books (including Mein Kampf) in Arabic, helping to deepen and extend already existing hostility to Jews. So, as readers can imagine, any mention of The Muslim Brotherhood conjures up all sorts of horrific memories.
The internet posting claims, with some credibility: “The document details a strategic plan whose ultimate goal is ‘the establishment of the reign of God over the entire world’. The document……………recommends to ‘study of the centers (sic) of power locally and worldwide, and the possibilities of placing them under influence’ to contact and support new holy war movements anywhere in the world, to support holy wars in Palestine and ‘nurtur[e] the sentiment of rancour with regard to Jews’…… It is pointed out that the [Brotherhood] doesn’t have to act in the name of the Brotherhood, but can infiltrate existing entities. They can thus avoid being located and neutralized.’ The document also advocates creating a network of religious, educational and charitable institutions in Europe and the U.S. to increase influence there.”
Frightening, isn’t it? It’s meant to be. But readers should pause and reflect before hoisting the “hate Muslims” flag. I found it more ironic than dangerous. Firstly, much of the alleged “strategy” is very reminiscent of early Christian strategy devised and implemented for a similar objective by the Christian Church to rule the world (oops, sorry, “spread the Word”). Many were slaughtered in the name of the Prince of Peace and hatred was spread in the name of the God of Love. So, Christians haven’t erected any high moral pulpit from which to preach.
On the subject of creating “charitable” institutions with a hidden agenda of religious brain washing, why do you think the YMCA, Salvation Army and other “faith-based” civic organisations were started?
George Williams, a young Draper (founder of the first YMCA) expressly wanted to “improve the spiritual condition of young men engaged in the drapery, embroidery, and other trades” and provide an alternative for taverns, brothels and other “sinful” temptations. The Salvation Army isn’t solely charitable but also evangelical. So, don’t blame Muslims for trying to spread their “word” under charity’s cloak. It’s standard religious practice. I suppose it’s ok when “we” do it but not when “they” do.
Secondly, I’ve no problem believing much of the alleged factual content of the hyped up, inflammatory rhetoric because I’ve long ago predicted something like this (see my Gleaner Column of October 21, 2009: “Multiplication” in which I pointed out that the Muslim policy of polygamy would soon enough ensure that Christianity is overwhelmed by sheer numbers). It’s nobody’s fault but our own because we insist on ignoring nature (God) and imposing man’s idea of “morals” upon equipment whose mechanics were designed specifically by God to disregard any such hifalutin’ concepts.

Like it or not, God made man with the ability and inclination to father children at will and woman with the ability (and inclination) to have only one a year for good reason. Christians have ignored this REALITY and ignored Old Testament exhortations to “Go ye forth and multiply” because to do otherwise would reduce church control and increase human reliance on human nature.

Like it or not, God made man with the ability and inclination to father children at will and woman with the ability (and inclination) to have only one per year for good reason. It’s that simple and Christians continue to bury their spiritual heads in the sand thus making prostitution the most viable and profitable vocation in Christianity.
This manmade foolishness about one man and one woman was never preached by Jesus who prevented an “adulterous” woman from being punished on the basis that what man called “adultery” was the norm. Jesus spoke of children separating from their parents and, when joined together as man and wife, “the two shall become one flesh”. He cautioned against divorce (in the main) and warned that a man who unjustifiably divorces his wife and remarries commits adultery. Christians can’t recognise this as preaching against abandonment not against polygamy which is a union involving neither divorce nor remarriage and which all other species in God’s animal kingdom embrace without reservation.

Christian women who don’t like the sound of this and want to call me names go right ahead while Muslims take over the world without a shot being fired. What most Christian women don’t understand because they’ve been brainwashed to forever seek the impossible is that, in polygamy, women are always in charge. Men are mere utility players (and happy to be). Women decide every important issue involving children while men, easily led by the “head”, do as they’re told in the eternal hope of carnal reward.
Please don’t get me wrong. My exposure of polygamy’s successes (it also has its failures) are illustrative only and I am not advocating that the Christian world embrace or promote polygamy as a religious policy. I am advocating a Christian change of policy from damnation to tolerance coupled with compassionate reasoning. 1’m advocating a reality-based tolerance for other “faiths”; a reality-based tolerance for infidelity; especially where highly educated women are being churned out by Colleges on a 2 to 1 ratio, I’m advocating a reality-based tolerance for the conscious sharing of men; I’m advocating tolerance for homosexuality. Just as (some) churches can tolerate drinking, smoking or gambling, why balk at sex? What’s the special sin here? Even the Pope now seems to conditionally support condoms so maybe there’s hope for more tolerance of individual sexual mores.
Similar to the U.S.A’s experiment in Prohibition, when alcohol was criminalised, Christianity’s stubborn insistence on demonising some sexual practices can only produce increased security and profits for prostitution and concubinage. And Muslim world domination. No terrorists required.
Peace and Love

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: