The Opposite of Equality for ALL

Totally out of the blue, unsolicited and with no context or prior conversation whatever @issu_assenjee sent me a screenshot. (Tweet's link)

My thoughts on its content are marked by ^(x) and detailed below.

It says...

"The question, then, is: Well, did true justice not exist 10 years ago? Were people ignorant of justice 10 or 20 years ago? Was everyone evil and oppressive less than one generation in the past?
⁽¹⁾ If a white humanist atheist 10 years ago, for example, didn't recognize his "'privilege" and paid no heed to making space for women and the transgendered and wasn't sensitive enough to respect the pronoun preferences of others, and opposed gay marriage like 95% of the rest of the population, etc., etc., would he have been correct in thinking of himself as a "good" person? Clearly not, according to today's humanist, social justice standards.
⁽²⁾ Look at the original version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the historical document from the middle of the twentieth century that was supposed to be the pinnacle of morality as recognized by universal human reason. No mention of sexual orientation, no mention of transgenderism, no mention of racial privilege, no mention of sex positivity, etc.,etc.
Now the humanist might say, these values had to be discovered and now reason has discovered those values and religion had nothing to do with it.
⁽³⁾ But let"s look at that response more closely. It essentially concedes the entire argument because if humanists 10 years ago believed themselves to be "good" and "just" and turned out to be so deeply mistaken, then what guarantees that the humanists who think of themselves as "good"' and "just" today are not equally mistaken? What reason is there to think that 10 years from now, "reason" won't discover new values and new standards of goodness and justice, standards by which the humanists of today would be considered vile monsters?
⁽⁴⁾ The humanist, therefore, has no basis, by his own lights, to claim that he is a good person, much less to claim that he doesn't need religion to be a good person!
One does not even need to appeal to diversity in moral standards over time. Look at the diversity in any instant of history including today. Views of right and wrong vastly differ among contemporary atheists and humanists themselves in mutually exclusive ways.
Which humanists, therefore, are in actuality the good ones, the ones truly living according to justice? Who decides?
⁽⁵⁾ Furthermore, most humanists did not individually and independently and through the power of their own reflection arrive at the moral directives they so fervently believe to be intuitive, unassailable truths. It is not like each atheist/humanist sits and ponders for extended periods of time to formulate his own moral code that he will abide by for the rest of his life.
No, most of those moral commitments, whatever they are, are accepted by the humanist on the basis of outside authority -— the authority of other humanist thinkers or just good ol" cultural or institutional authority and conditioning. So how is that any different than the theist who claims his morality comes from the authority of religion?
Be that as it may, the only way humanists are even able to make their moronic argument in the first place is by focusing on a handful of widely accepted moral claims involving murder and rape. They make embarrassingly condescending yet asinine statements like, "I don't need God to tell me not to rape!" and "If the only reason you don't murder people is because God said so, then you're a psychopath, hur dur durr!"' In other words, the only way for their claim to have any traction is to reduce all of morality to... "

I've asked for the author's name but as yet it's unforthcoming.
If you know, let me know; I'd love to properly credit it.

My comments...
⁽¹⁾ Why single out the colour of the humanist atheist? Neither humanism or atheism have colours. Are you trying to imply humanist atheists are white, or that only white humanist atheists hold those values? What's the purpose of this distortion? Seems racist.

⁽²⁾ When United Nations Declaration of Human Rights was penned, religion had much more power over people's lives; it had repressed acceptance of those values, and still tries to, for thousands of years. Given the level of religious repression of the time, The UNDHR was as egalitarian as it could have been.

⁽³⁾ Where there is a wrong, it can be rectified. The argument, which can be biolled down to "Humanist morals are wholly fluid" will only attain validity if the values listed fall away in a future generation, however, as humanism's core is more or less "ALL are equal", I see no way for them to do so.

⁽⁴⁾ What a humanist(or any human) claims to 'be' is irrelevant; anyone can claim to be "good" but only one's actions and demeanour toward ALL others  display one's nature. e.g. If one prays to remain supreme above others, is one being "good"?

⁽⁵⁾ Most humanists accept the external authority of the concept of human equality, that is they accept the concept 'ALL are equal' has stand-alone authority; in a field populated almost exclusively by hatefully supremacist dogmas, it stands out as significant.

Finally - Only one who seeks to promote a competing doctrine could create and deliver such a distortion of what it is to be humanist but it's always difficult for an enslaved prisoner of doctrine to properly grasp what it is to be free. The authoritarianism of a religious doctrine functions to hound the less zealous into submission to the full dogma, whereas Humanism functions without compulsion to conform to arbitrary diktats; some humans are free to choose to accept some, or all, values of humanism.

For me, the main difference between humanism and religion is humanism accepts people's differences and expands the category of 'equal' to accommodate them, whereas religion constricts and represses people's differences to enforce intransigent conformity to the arbitrary ideal of a despot.

So, a couple of questions to end...

Do you see the quoted narrative as wholly prejudiced by religious thinking; partisan, biased, ignorant and racist or is it just me who sees those things writ loud and disgustingly proud?

As I stated earlier, I view Humanism's core as "Equality for ALL" so...
Can any doctrine, which is in competition with and opposition to "equality for all", be anything other that "supremacy for some"?

This is one of the Too Many Questions

PEACE
Crispy

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!

Peace Through Conspiracy

Below is the content of a letter I have just posted to my Member of Parliament.

I am writing with reference to the Counter extremism, Home affairs committee's interview of Fazal Dad, Senior Imam, Abu Bakr Mosque, Bradford, on 12th January.
About 11.5 minutes into the session Nusrat Ghani Conservative, Wealden, asked...

"Maybe it would be helpful if you'd explain how these ideas differ from the faith that you practise in your mosque."
(PDF Transcript Here - (Q738) Or watch the video of the session Here)

Fazal Dad began responding by decrying the misappropriation of his faith by extremists who interpret verses of the Qur'an to suit their own ideology. Very laudable. Unfortunately, almost in the same breath, Mr Dad then presented a distortion of a verse, favoured by Muslim apologists and moderates, which is designed, to suit their own ideology, to fraudulently, extremely mislead the listener into believing this abhorrent doctrine is peaceful. Fazal Dad delivered, to parliament, the same trite, flip, distortion of the Qur'an's words that most Muslims will trot out when defending atrocities by those of their faith...

"The Qur'an tells us straight away... 'Min qatala l-nasa', the person who kills any person it is as though this person has killed humanity, and the person who saves one single person it is as though this person has saved humanity"

; a distorted, out-of-context and misleading paraphrase of the Qur'an verse 5:32, which actually states

"On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person - unless it be in retaliation for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew all mankind: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all humanity."

The deceptive omissions he and all "moderate" Muslims make, change the verse, making it sound as if the verse applies to Muslims, it does not; it's a passage referring to long-dead Israelites. However, no matter who the believer thinks it refers to, Muslims or Israelites, it is not the Buddha-like message of peace Muslims paint it to be, but instead has caveats and clauses for those who may be 'righteously' slaughtered. An extremist would argue that "the land" mentioned refers to "all lands owned by Allah" or as we know it the world, and that "spreading mischief" refers to anyone not conforming to Allah's wishes, or as we know them, non-Muslims, which, as you can see, clearly moves the meaning of the verse into one which legitimises the slaughter of any/all non-Muslims.
Why did the counter extremism committee allow Fazal Dad to repeat this misleading quote from his scripture without challenge?
All I hear from western leaders is how peaceful Islam is; has nobody actually read the Qur'an? Are ALL western leaders simply relying on Muslim advisers? I have no idea how any properly adjusted human can read the Qur'an and not find it wholly offensive, both on a human rights level and a legal level and I'm deeply concerned at the apparent complete lack of comprehension about the true nature of this religion being fraudulently promoted as peaceful by those who are paid to keep us safe.
I understand the committee will be recalling Fazal Dad, would it be possible to request he recite the full verse, in English, with all the wording, then explain why he and so many Muslims conceal the true verse behind the misleading, edited version?

Please pass this letter to a committee member and the chair.

So to the questions...
Have western leaders been too lazy to be offended by the contents themselves, relying solely on "trusted" Islamic advisers? Or is there a great conspiracy, spread far and wide, to conceal the absence of a message of peace in this "message of peace"?
And, if that is the case, how can any intelligent human become convinced that peace via conspiracy is achievable?
Is it just me, or does it sound like a perfect recipe for conflict and civil war to anyone else?


This is one of the Too Many Questions

PEACE
Crispy

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!