The Gospel of Unbelief

[Bullypulpit]

Of course.
I like jappy girls by the way. They're sexy in a "you're not good enough" kind of way! shalom, jilly baby.

And now, unable to form a cogent argument you resort to lame, cheap shots. Your colors aren't red, white and blie old son...They're yellow.

 

[MissileMan]

Isn't it?

No, they would be non-religious groups. You keep using the word secular to imply atheistic, or liberal, or anti-religious. Secular is none of those.

 

[Annie]

And now, unable to form a cogent argument you resort to lame, cheap shots. Your colors aren't red, white and blie old son...They're yellow.

Problem with the kind of thing you are responding to is found at both ends of the political spectrum. I know you don't care for MM, but these responses are mild to what she's had in the past. Seems many cannot stand women, especially women of color, (see the crap on Condi):

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005008.htm

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Secular does not equal atheistic. Secular does not equal liberal. As I've said, there are some secular, conservative Christians who frequent this board.

True. As said before, the meaning of secular can vary.

The Left agenda is to wipe out any reference to religion within the secular form of our government.

No, they would be non-religious groups. You keep using the word secular to imply atheistic, or liberal, or anti-religious. Secular is none of those.

OK, Planned Parenthood is "non-religious". Therefore it is acceptable for government funding. The Left wants to stamp out all forms and references to religion. The Left wants "secular" only. To me that's the same as "anti-religious".

What's your point?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

And now, unable to form a cogent argument you resort to lame, cheap shots. Your colors aren't red, white and blie old son...They're yellow.

You're deranged.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Ahhh...Now your true colors show. Anti-Semite.

I like jews. But there are jews who are reflexively anti christian, and paranoid.

 

[LOki]

The definition of Secularism can vary. Secularism does have its own set of beliefs:

Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life, founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable. Its essential principles are three:

(1) The improvement of this life by material means.
(2) That science is the available Providence of man.
(3) That it is good to do good. Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism

The definitions can vary? Really? I suppose that when you look up a definition at a resource where *anyone* can write an entry and *anyone* else can edit it, I'm sure you'll come up with a number of different ideas on the subject. Yet when I am looking for a definition, I usually start with a dictionary--why didn't you?

Let's just see....
<blockquote>SECULAR
1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns> b : not overtly or specifically religious <secular music> c : not ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners>
2 : not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation <a secular priest></blockquote>Ah, apparently your problem with the dictionary is that the actual definition of secular cannot be confused with:
<blockquote>ATHEISM
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity</blockquote>Don't look now SE, but I think your theocratic slip is shownig.

In and of itself secularism per se is not bad.

I'm glad to see you concede this much.

However, do you really think it was the intent of our Founding Fathers to create a "secular society" and stamp out any reference to God or Christian beliefs in our government?

No and yes. In order to protect a society comprised of folks practicing varied religions, the Founding Fathers established an expressly secular government that would protect all faiths without the power to promote any faith over another.

Secularists are not trying to "stamp out any reference to God or Christian beliefs," but they are trying to head of the precedent where once Christian beliefs are explicitly promoted and endorsed by the coercive power of government, next Muslim beliefs are promoted and endorsed by the coercive power of government--how about Satanism after that?--does that appeal to your sense that a little religion, and religious expression with government guns is okeydokey? That's precisely what's happening now--having already appeased the Christian theocrats, our government is "equal timing" every other theology to avoid violation of the establishment clause.

Our Constitution just states that government cannot establish a religion.

It certainly does, but I'll just bet you have some special "theocrats edition" of wikipedia defining establish for you.

It does NOT say that various religious beliefs cannot exist and express themselves in our laws, in our government representatives, government buildings, public works, etc. -- which is the false propaganda of the Left.

Well, what it does say is that "Congress shall make no law to institute (as a law) permanently by enactment or agreement; to make firm or stable; to introduce and cause to grow and multiply; to put on a firm basis; to put into a favorable position; to gain full recognition or acceptance of; to make (a church) a national or state institution of religion, or the free excersize thereof."

That's not propaganda pal, that's the way it is. So if our laws, government representatives, government buildings, public works, etc... serve to institute (as a law) permanently by enactment or agreement; to make firm or stable; to introduce and cause to grow and multiply; to put on a firm basis; to put into a favorable position; to gain full recognition or acceptance of; to make (a church) a national or state institution of religion, then they are in fact establishing religion in contradiction to the 1st Amendment.

Because governemt has no business funding religions--1st Amendment.

Again, the first amendment refers to the establishment of a religion.
Hey, I'm all for the government getting out of almost ALL the goodie-giving business, to both secular and religious groups.

I think the difference between us is that I am rather aware of what the 1st amendment says, and what establish means (among other words), and that government spending is determined via the function of making law, and you are not.

So secular government is now a non-Christian agenda? Be careful.

You bet it is...in today's politics. Don't kid yourself.

Not even close.

Yes, on a rational basis. Just how are atheists prevented from practicing their beliefs these days? Seems they have a much easier time of it today compared to 200 years ago when our country was first founded and all those nasty Christians were carrying around Bibles wherever they went. Does a Christmas tree in the public square today convert them? Or does a cross on the grave of a fallen Christian soldier prevent them from being atheist? Do you consider those things to be "mob rule"? Evidently the atheistic ACLU considers those things to be "dangerous" for some reason. If you figure out that "reason" you will understand the real game that is being played today and maybe you will stop being their puppet and supporting their ridiculous claims.

Christians are NOT the ones to be feared....

Look, I'm not the one here who is confused about the difference between the religion of atheism and the government policy of constitutional secularism. I don't want some atheist's religion becoming the foundation of federal law any more than I want Pat Robertson's religion becoming the foundation of federal law. But if I am forced to choose between an atheist country and a Christian one, I'm going to choose the bullshit superstition that doesn't set someone on fire because the bible told them to.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

It's not about abolishing, it is about putting a particular religion on a pedestal within govt....

I'm pretty sure that Islam has a monopoly on that pedestal right now.

 

[Dr Grump]

I'm pretty sure that Islam has a monopoly on that pedestal right now.

Aye. It seems that way in a lot of places right now...

 

[LOki]

Partially. Our government morality is also defined in the constitution to some degree.

No. Our morality is reflected in the Constitution--NOT defined by it.

So we agree there is a public morality, and that defining it is an ongoing process. Religions of all types inform this debate, and so to do various atheist, and secular thought systems. Religion should not be "set aside" as unworthy regarding these discussion of the public morality.

And they're not. Not in the least.

You'd think, but the reason of man in absence of the laws of god leads to barbaric practices like eugenics.

Eugenics is irrational, and no less barbaric than human sacrifice--the laws of God are no peach of civilization either.

That all sounds nice. But from what I've seen the left is more faithfully and illogically committed to the triumph of socialism, despite it's repeated failure and core ontological misconstruals, than any rabid bible thumper is about jesus.

Not one thing I said was even remotely an advocacy for, or related in any manner, to socialism. But since you put them together right here for me, I'll just point out that socialists are prescisely as contemptuous of reason as are "the faithful." It's why socialsm repeatedly fails and why Christians ultimately had to rehabilitate Galileo, it's why socialism will continue to fail, and why Christians will continue to make excuses for their irrational criticisms of scientific discovery.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No. Our morality is reflected in the Constitution--NOT defined by it.

the parameters of your basic freedoms are defined by the constitution and anyone voting today had no say in it.

And they're not. Not in the least.

Religion as a source of policy input IS considered inferior by the secular elites.

"religion is a personal matter"

Eugenics is irrational, and no less barbaric than human sacrifice--the laws of God are no peach of civilization either.

Eugenics has always been supported by men of science. It has been presented rationally as a way of making manking better. you know "survival of the fittest"?


check out this stuff on planned parenthood and it's founder Margaret Sanger.

http://blackgenocide.org/sanger.html

Not to be outdone by her followers, Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as "unfit," a plan she said would be the "salvation of American civilization.: And she also spike of those who were "irresponsible and reckless," among whom she included those " whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers." She further contended that "there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped." That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered "unfit" cannot be easily refuted.

While Planned Parenthood's current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920), "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "The purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924), "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925), "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928), and many others.

These eugenic and racial origins are hardly what most people associate with the modern Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), which gave its Margaret Sanger award to the late Dr. Martin Luther King in 1966, and whose current president, Faye Wattleton, is black, a former nurse, and attractive.

Though once a social pariah group, routinely castigated by religious and government leaders, the PPFA is now an established, high-profile, well-funded organization with ample organizational and ideological support in high places of American society and government. Its statistics are accepted by major media and public health officials as "gospel"; its full-page ads appear in major newspapers; its spokespeople are called upon to give authoritative analyses of what America's family policies should be and to prescribe official answers that congressmen, state legislator and Supreme Court justiices all accept as "social orthodoxy."

 

[LOki]

the parameters of your basic freedoms are defined by the constitution and anyone voting today had no say in it.

Nope. Not defined. Sorry. Try again.

Religion as a source of policy input IS considered inferior by the secular elites.

"religion is a personal matter"

Policy based on one faith has no greater validity than policy based uopn another's faith--all faiths being equal, non-religious (i.e. secular) considerations must decide.

Eugenics has always been supported by men of science. It has been presented rationally as a way of making manking better. you know "survival of the fittest"?


check out this stuff on planned parenthood and it's founder Margaret Sanger.

http://blackgenocide.org/sanger.html

Eugenics remains irrational. It's support by some "men of science" makes it no more rational than the Christian assertion that washing away one's sins in the blood of an innocent is the road to salvation--no matter how many "men of faith" believe it.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The definitions can vary? Really? I suppose that when you look up a definition at a resource where *anyone* can write an entry and *anyone* else can edit it, I'm sure you'll come up with a number of different ideas on the subject. Yet when I am looking for a definition, I usually start with a dictionary--why didn't you?

Let's just see....
<blockquote>SECULAR
1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns> b : not overtly or specifically religious <secular music> c : not ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners>
2 : not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation <a secular priest></blockquote>Ah, apparently your problem with the dictionary is that the actual definition of secular cannot be confused with:
<blockquote>ATHEISM
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity</blockquote>Don't look now SE, but I think your theocratic slip is shownig.

Slip, schmip. I'm surprised you didn't accuse the dictionary of being theocratic. And even your definitions plainly state that there are variations of the meaning of secular which is basically all I said.

No and yes. In order to protect a society comprised of folks practicing varied religions, the Founding Fathers established an expressly secular government that would protect all faiths without the power to promote any faith over another.

No and yes? Waffling much? Let me repeat my question: "do you really think it was the intent of our Founding Fathers to create a "secular society" and stamp out any reference to God or Christian beliefs in our government?" The answer is plainly NO.

Secularists are not trying to "stamp out any reference to God or Christian beliefs," but they are trying to head of the precedent where once Christian beliefs are explicitly promoted and endorsed by the coercive power of government, next Muslim beliefs are promoted and endorsed by the coercive power of government--how about Satanism after that?--does that appeal to your sense that a little religion, and religious expression with government guns is okeydokey? That's precisely what's happening now--having already appeased the Christian theocrats, our government is "equal timing" every other theology to avoid violation of the establishment clause.

I am not some sort of right wing Christian wacko that you probably think I am. I do NOT believe that our government has the right to ESTABLISH RELIGION. I do, however, believe that people have the right to FREE SPEECH which also includes expression of their religious beliefs, whether they're in the government or not. Also, if tax money is to be distributed to groups in this country, I do not see why a non-religious groups should be favored over religious-based groups. Both groups can have agendas relating to religion, pro or con. Who gets our money should be a decision made by our representatives. If the majority wants to favor Satanic groups, so be it, as long as that federally-funded Satanic group does not force its religion on the people it helps.

It certainly does, but I'll just bet you have some special "theocrats edition" of wikipedia defining establish for you.

And I'll just bet you agree with the ACLU that if an elected government representative even utters the word "God" he is "establishing religion".

Well, what it does say is that "Congress shall make no law to institute (as a law) permanently by enactment or agreement; to make firm or stable; to introduce and cause to grow and multiply; to put on a firm basis; to put into a favorable position; to gain full recognition or acceptance of; to make (a church) a national or state institution of religion, or the free excersize thereof."

That's not propaganda pal, that's the way it is. So if our laws, government representatives, government buildings, public works, etc... serve to institute (as a law) permanently by enactment or agreement; to make firm or stable; to introduce and cause to grow and multiply; to put on a firm basis; to put into a favorable position; to gain full recognition or acceptance of; to make (a church) a national or state institution of religion, then they are in fact establishing religion in contradiction to the 1st Amendment.

Nothing wrong with that. However, appropriating tax money to religious-based groups as well as non-religious groups is not the same as "making a law".

I think the difference between us is that I am rather aware of what the 1st amendment says, and what establish means (among other words), and that government spending is determined via the function of making law, and you are not.

The difference is both you and the ACLU seem to have your own ideas about what the 1st amendment says regarding making laws to establish religion. Exactly what law is Bush making by appropriating federal funds to a faith-based group?

Not even close.

Time to wake up dude.

Look, I'm not the one here who is confused about the difference between the religion of atheism and the government policy of constitutional secularism. I don't want some atheist's religion becoming the foundation of federal law any more than I want Pat Robertson's religion becoming the foundation of federal law. But if I am forced to choose between an atheist country and a Christian one, I'm going to choose the bullshit superstition that doesn't set someone on fire because the bible told them to.

I'm not confused mr. smarty-pants. You can practice whatever damn religion you want. Just let us practice our Christian religion as well. Don't stuff us into a "secular" vacuum.

 

[dilloduck]

A state elects a man to the Senate because he is a fine upstanding Christian. Is it constutional for him to even take office?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Nope. Not defined. Sorry. Try again.

Policy based on one faith has no greater validity than policy based uopn another's faith--all faiths being equal, non-religious (i.e. secular) considerations must decide.


Eugenics remains irrational. It's support by some "men of science" makes it no more rational than the Christian assertion that washing away one's sins in the blood of an innocent is the road to salvation--no matter how many "men of faith" believe it.

Much of what i consider our state morality IS in the constitution and, thank god, is not susceptible through change through the democratic process.

So religion can be wrong, science can be wrong, both can lead to good or evil, so why do secularists feel so superior?

At least religion is time tested, the mess man is making with HIMSELF as god will ultimately be cleaned up by the faithful. There's no logical reason to NOT be barbaric, unless you have a zealots preference for peace.

 

[LOki]

Slip, schmip. I'm surprised you didn't accuse the dictionary of being theocratic.

What kind of diversionary bullshit is this?

And even your definitions plainly state that there are variations of the meaning of secular which is basically all I said.

No so much so that secular mean atheist as you so vehemently continue to assert.

Your point was not the varying usage of secular--your point was secularism is a denial of the existence of God, which is in fact atheism. You went as far to avoid what your own resource had to say which was:<blockquote>"Holyoake held that secularism should take no interest at all in religious questions (as they were irrelevant), and was thus to be distinguished from militant freethought and atheism. In this he disagreed with Charles Bradlaugh, and the disagreement split the secularist movement between those who argued that anti-religious propaganda and activism was not necessary or desirable and those who argued that it was."</blockquote>My guess is that the reason you are so desperate to make an equivalent association between secularism and atheism is that atheism, like Christianity is faith based, rather than reason based, and on those grounds your faith based rationalizations are just as effective as any other faith based rationalizations they are put up against.

But rational people ask questions, difficult questions, painful questions--and they are not neccessarily satisfied by what one person's Invisible White Father Who Lives In Sky says, much less His absolutely obedient, but none-the-less charming, volitionary says.

You are arguing much like this Cal Thomas whose article was the start of this thread. As I suggested earlier, his problem is having his beliefs, that are unsupported by fact or reason, questioned. It undermines his preferred authority system. What he ultimately enjoins you to do is, "Do as you're told by those who are in charge of the sacred book--and don't listen to those with "other" ideas." He enjoins you to not be critical of the foundation that his favored brand of authoritarianism is based upon.

Your Faith-Based Authoritarianism has no teeth without the coercive power of the government, your wish that it should gain that coercive power will never be granted as long as secularists keep your religion out of the government. As a result, all faiths--including atheists, including Christians--will be free to practice their faith, and better off for it.

No and yes? Waffling much? Let me repeat my question: "do you really think it was the intent of our Founding Fathers to create a "secular society" and stamp out any reference to God or Christian beliefs in our government?" The answer is plainly NO.

Waffle? Fuck you Charlie. You asked two questions that required two answers, and also required correction of your bullshit presumptions.

Question 1:"do you really think it was the intent of our Founding Fathers to create a "secular society"?" Your bullshit presumption is that the Founding Fathers were attempting to create a society when in fact the society already existed--they were trying to create a government that would protect that society.

Question 2:"do you really think it was the intent of our Founding Fathers to stamp out any reference to God or Christian beliefs in our government?" Your bullshit presumption is that the Founding Fathers were eradicating something that was not even there.

Since you repeated your question, so that everyone can be sure what you're on about, let me repeat my answer which "waffles" none:<blockquote>"No and yes. In order to protect a society comprised of folks practicing varied religions, the Founding Fathers established an expressly secular government that would protect all faiths without the power to promote any faith over another."</blockquote>"No," they were not creating a secular society, society was already there, but the government had yet to be created; and "Yes," their intent was government unprescribed by belief in God or Christianity.

I am not some sort of right wing Christian wacko that you probably think I am. I do NOT believe that our government has the right to ESTABLISH RELIGION.

But you're willing to ignore the definition of establish so that government can establish your religion over others.

I do, however, believe that people have the right to FREE SPEECH which also includes expression of their religious beliefs, whether they're in the government or not.

And apparently whether such expression is AS government or not; whether such expression is asserted, or promoted, or endorsed; explicitly, or implicitly; by or with the coercive force of government, is not particularly relevant to you, is it? As long as it's Christain, it's AOK!

Also, if tax money is to be distributed to groups in this country, I do not see why a non-religious groups should be favored over religious-based groups.

For the same reason tax money is not collected from religious groups. Religious groups get their funding tax free without going on the dole, and without any sensible rationalization for such exemption except "Congress shall make no law respecting an establisment of religion..."

Both groups can have agendas relating to religion, pro or con.

Presumtive, but understandably so, coming from a religio whose religious tradition is a rich history of anti-other-religion.

Who gets our money should be a decision made by our representatives. If the majority wants to favor Satanic groups, so be it, as long as that federally-funded Satanic group does not force its religion on the people it helps.

Wrong. Federal spending is determined by law. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establisment of religion..." including laws that allow for spending for religions.

And I'll just bet you agree with the ACLU that if an elected government representative even utters the word "God" he is "establishing religion".

The ACLU says that? Show me. With the context. But no, it think it's ok for an elected government representative to utter the word "God." But I think "uttering," and "placing prominently in legislation or government policy" are different things.

Nothing wrong with that. However, appropriating tax money to religious-based groups as well as non-religious groups is not the same as "making a law".

Federal spending is determined by law. Congress has to make a law for spending. Government spending is done by making law. It's not the same as making law--it is making law. The first amendment makes it unconstitutional to make such laws.

I think the difference between us is that I am rather aware of what the 1st amendment says, and what establish means (among other words), and that government spending is determined via the function of making law, and you are not.

The difference is both you and the ACLU seem to have your own ideas about what the 1st amendment says regarding making laws to establish religion. Exactly what law is Bush making by appropriating federal funds to a faith-based group?

The law that says you can't make a law, including spending laws, or appropriation laws, respecting an establishment of religion. It would be that law precisely. You should look it up, and then look up the definitions of the words--but try a dictionary rather than the bible.

I'm not confused mr. smarty-pants. You can practice whatever damn religion you want. Just let us practice our Christian religion as well. Don't stuff us into a "secular" vacuum.

You are obviously still confused.

Much of what i consider our state morality IS in the constitution and, thank god, is not susceptible through change through the democratic process.

As I asserted before, and this does not contradict that the consitution's morality, but our morality is reflected in the constitution--NOT defined by it. The rights described are inherent to us, and the powers of government described are granted by us--the constitution does not define our morality, our morality defines it.

So religion can be wrong, science can be wrong, both can lead to good or evil, so why do secularists feel so superior?

Presumptive. And wrongly so. Why do the religious feel so superior in their faith, that it is is so different than the faith of others, that it is a fair refutation of confirmed observations and measurments of reality, so much so that adherents to their faith are justified in their burning, hanging, stoning, quartering, eviscerating, impaling, pressing, racking and just plain murdering of those who do not believe as they do?

At least religion is time tested, the mess man is making with HIMSELF as god will ultimately be cleaned up by the faithful.

Religion is a time tested rationale for genocide. If there is a God, my guess is religion and blind faith are His way of identifying the retards and having them kill each other.

There's no logical reason to NOT be barbaric, unless you have a zealots preference for peace.

You're wrong, absolutely wrong. But since you cannot parse a rational, logically consistent reason to behave in a civil manner to your fellow human beings, I am glad you are afraid of being punished by your Invisible White Father Who Lives In The Sky for misbehaving.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

As I asserted before, and this does not contradict that the consitution's morality, but our morality is reflected in the constitution--NOT defined by it.
The rights described are inherent to us, and the powers of government described are granted by us--the constitution does not define our morality, our morality defines it.

Let's not do chicken and egg. The point is we have public morality. Where does it come from?

Presumptive. And wrongly so. Why do the religious feel so superior in their faith, that it is is so different than the faith of others, that it is a fair refutation of confirmed observations and measurments of reality, so much so that adherents to their faith are justified in their burning, hanging, stoning, quartering, eviscerating, impaling, pressing, racking and just plain murdering of those who do not believe as they do?

You mean like communists? WHo don't believe in religion?

Religion is a time tested rationale for genocide. If there is a God, my guess is religion and blind faith are His way of identifying the retards and having them kill each other.

religions are more or less suited to genocide, depending on their teachings.

You're wrong, absolutely wrong. But since you cannot parse a rational, logically consistent reason to behave in a civil manner to your fellow human beings, I am glad you are afraid of being punished by your Invisible White Father Who Lives In The Sky for misbehaving.

What constrains you?

 

[LOki]

Let's not do chicken and egg. The point is we have public morality. Where does it come from?

Rational principles.

You mean like communists? WHo don't believe in religion?

No. Not like communists, who are atheists, which is religion. Rather more like Christians. Rather than divert, why not answer the question?

religions are more or less suited to genocide, depending on their teachings.

And of course those teachings are not subject to revision because their alleged source is absolute and infallible, thus all genocides inspired by faith in God are righteous--regardless of whose faith in what God is being considerd. Yes?

What constrains you?

Rational principles.

 

[dilloduck]

Rational principles.
No. Not like communists, who are atheists, which is religion. Rather more like Christians. Rather than divert, why not answer the question?
And of course those teachings are not subject to revision because their alleged source is absolute and infallible, thus all genocides inspired by faith in God are righteous--regardless of whose faith in what God is being considerd. Yes?
Rational principles.

Cool--Libertarian propagada !!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Rational principles.
No. Not like communists, who are atheists, which is religion.

Atheism is a relgion?

Rather more like Christians. Rather than divert, why not answer the question?

Divert. You mean like documents diverted to sandy Berger's socks?

And of course those teachings are not subject to revision because their alleged source is absolute and infallible, thus all genocides inspired by faith in God are righteous--regardless of whose faith in what God is being considerd. Yes?
Rational principles.

No. That's why you have to evaluate and choose which religion you believe is MOST CLOSELY COMPLIANT with your beliefs, if you want to look at it that way. If you believe the west is the great satan which must be subjugated t o allah and disabused of its mass consumeristic free culture, then you should go with islam. if you want (other) stick with the christians, just for your own self interest, if not for Jaaayasus.
Either we allow intolerant islam to subjugate us. Or we take measures to stop it.