No Mosques, Churches, Synagogues & Temples, - Secularism is the solution

No Mosques, Churches, Synagogues & Temples, - Secularism is the solution

I am getting sick and tired of the constant pro Muslim, anti-Muslim threads. Where to permit to build a mosque and where not, etc. Also the common reply as to for each mosque in the west a church in a Muslim country.

I was born and raised a catholic and it took me decades to overcome this brainwashing. Now I am what one can consider an atheist and rather self proclaimed "militant" one. Now don't get me wrong, with militant I do not mean that i engage in violence, blow up churches or synagogues etc. What I mean with militant is that I rather check any "believer" right in his/her tracks before they can open their mouth.
I do NOT permit friends or relatives to bring bibles as gifts for my kids B-days. I do not permit people to say grace on MY dinner table and if invited by others I walk out till this stuff is done.

In essence I "do not tolerate Intolerance". For me all organized religions are pretty much the same crap and are truly the "opium of the masses". During the Hapsburg rule in Imperial Austria we had the saying that the Kaiser keeps the masses poor and the Pope keeps them dumb.

A bit back to history so: After the 30 years war in the 1600's the "Peace of Westphalia" agreement read in essence that "WHO rules the country decides to what god and church the people will pray to..." - (Wessen das Land, dessen der Glaube. = the original text) - So after 30 years of bashing each others heads in TPTB came up with this simple solution, and as we have seen with the falling apart of Yugoslavia is is pretty much the same today.

Naturally the new worlds of the Americas and Australia encouraged mass migration to these empty lands, ( well lets forget a bit about the natives...) and the notion of religious tolerance and freedom became more and more mainstream. This sounds all good and fine for one problem:

We as human being are a "social animal" which means we work in groups. However we are rather to be seen as a pack of wolves than a herd of 40,000 wildebeests. We can get along with each other just to such a degree till a specific number of people within a group exceed our tolerance. In anthropology this number is somehow set at a dozen to 2 dozen families. So more a "clan" or similar as the wolf pack. Beyond this number of people, conflicts arise. Now a country is definitely NOT a clan of 20 some families, but millions of families and individuals. And all around us are people who dress different, pray to different gods, have different customs and rules and morals and there the sparks fly.

Now many complain that Muslim countries as Saudi Arabia do not permit the building of churches. And I agree with them, why should they? S.A. or others have no constitution or laws that promote religious tolerance and why should they even think of making such possible? It always worked for them just fine and it will work fine in the future. Westerners complain about the intolerance of the Muslims, but I ask the questions, WHAT RIGHT do for example evangelical Christians have to stomp into a Muslim country and trying to convert its people?

Few years ago I discussed it with a Muslim co-worker. Our company had a mandatory shut down for 2 weeks during Christmas. He was "pissed" for having to take off 2 weeks for a Christian Holiday and later take his Ramada on unpaid leave. I made it known to him what my take on religion is, and that I would rule a country by atheistic principles ONLY. He was shocked till I explained him: Under MY rules, business would be open 24/7. People would have let's say 60 days off time. So the Christian takes his days off for his Christian holidays, the Muslim his days off for his holy days and so the Jews and others. I would not give a damn if the Muslim and Mormon had 5 wives - (not to mention 5 mothers in law) - and the secular gay person living with 3 partners. It's their problem.

To be continued Part 2

Guenter

Part 2:

There would also be no "moral laws", with this I mean laws that are purely based on religion and their morals. As for example laws on prostitution, nudism, homosexuality and so forth. You pray in your home, church or mosque but beyond those zone limits, everything goes.

Let me explain a bit on the issues of law. A lot of laws are not designed for actual "protection" but for control and a lot of them have their "morality" based on religion. I would return to natural laws. This means that every species, be it a man eating shark or some bacteria or us humans have the rules and regulations embedded in us by nature. I do not need a law stating that one shall not kill, it is NATURAL that one does not kill one's own species. Only a twisted psychopath will kill his own children and cook them for breakfast and so forth. Only a psychopath will enjoy the thrill of raping someone behind the bushes in the park. Laws that regulate safety, as like building-codes and so forth make sense as "regulation" to ensure a harmonious and safe life for all.

Naturally I am also a nudist and strongly support this healthy lifestyle. And there now comes the issue. So many clamor about setting a limit as to what the "Muslims" should be allowed to do. Well the answer is simple. Instead of putting more laws into the books, more restrictions and so forth there are many "Softer ways" to "discourage" people from settling near you.

During the late 60's and 70's, Germany had a large "guest worker" population mostly from Turkey, - which is a Muslim country. These were also the times where nudism was at its peak. Strangely enough, most Turks left after their 5 year stay and did NOT apply for permanent immigration. WHY? Very simply! They for sure enjoyed the topless beaches and so, BUT would never permit nor tolerate that their own wife and daughters would be "exposed to such Immorality".

For some time, just after the Iranian-US hostage taking I was working for a personnel company that sent engineers out to all projects world wide. I could have made 3 times the money IF I had agreed to go to Iran or Saudi Arabia than to other locations. I refused! Simply because if this county's laws deny me the right to enjoy a good beer or wine after a hard day's work, then I don't need their money, and if I can't be nude at their beaches, then they do not need my tourist $$$.

However during the 80's onwards the RRR or Radical Religious Right wanted to stem these "immoral ways" of this 60's and 70's generation and so they clamped down on nudity, on sexual freedoms and so forth and strangely enough even went to bed with their Muslim bedfellows. During the UN conference in the 90's on population control, the Catholic Church and the Muslims joined forces to oppress the use of contraceptives and abortion. Also Catholics and Muslims are pretty much ideologically "dog and cats".

Now the "free nude beaches" are gone mostly and one has to be more or less a member of a club or resort to enjoy this lifestyle. No more topless in the parks or at the river front. Yet NOW the people scream that they are sick an tired of seeing them Muslim women all covered up and that they are "over run" by these "invaders".
The West's own resurgence of Prudery and Puritanical thinking and "morality" has "enabled others" to flock to these countries.
Nothing makes a religious zealot run faster than a open minded and free living society. I for example, when facing Mormon Missionaries, use a simple trick. Mormons send some handsome looking late teen males for their mission. I admit that they do have in quite handsome young men. I also KNOW that the Mormons are maybe the most homophobic group of so called Christians. To get rid of them, all I do is ask them out for a hot "3-some". They run faster than the best Olympic champion sprinters. NO deeply religious person will raise their kids in a society that accepts LGBT relations, nudity etc. That's how you stops mosques from being built.

Guenter