Nike Niqab

Nike Niqab
Nike Niqab

What are the depths some brands will go to, to keep themselves in the spotlight and increase profits?

What exactly is the itch that these companies cannot seem to scratch?

Why do they think that brand image and boarding the political and ideological bus will put them in a good light? Especially when most of their customers don’t give a shit about the message they are trying to convey – that Islam is a religion of peace and equality. Which it isn’t!

Pandering to a repressive ideology in which women are treated as possessions is not progress. Understanding the hijab/niqab/burka is to understand male insecurities and forcing women to hide from society because they will “tempt the flesh of those who are most easily tempted”.

Does Nike voluntarily get into bed with those who live within repressive societies – and those who live repressive lives in free societies – in order to liberate those repressed people? Or does Nike employ the Swedish method; the method in which you pander to the winning side (Nazis) until they start losing and then pander to the opposite side (UK and USA)?

Okay, so that’s just business. But, historically, business was never as compromising as it is today.

YouTube Comment Reply to an Idiot

This is a reply to “GoodScienceForYou” …

 

 

So, I guess you’re Jewish like Einstein then.

It is true that the delusional person has no awareness of their own delusion. So who exactly is delusional here? It could be me; it could be you; but as long as I question my own beliefs and the beliefs of others, I’m not the one who is truly delusional. I’m the one who maintains an open mind and is receptive to new ideas that may put my own beliefs and assumptions into doubt, and I’m happy to be proven wrong.

Unlike yourself.

The fact that you have adopted Jehovah as your god of choice should give you a clue as to where your delusion comes from. Not from yourself, but from those around you. Jehovah either exists or you have naively subscribed to someone else’s definition of god. So the challenge here is not about science, but about evidence for the existence of Jehovah.

If there was concrete evidence of Jehovah’s existence, then we would all be worshipping him. Anyone who finds evidence of god of any kind would be worshipped almost equally. The Nobel Peace Prize would look like small-change compared to the adoration any scientist would receive in finding evidence of a god of any kind.

The problem mainstream religion has with science is that successive scientific discoveries drag us further away from religious scripture and the definition of god (or gods). The idea that a universe so impossibly huge for our brains to conceive, with more stars and planets than the human mind can comprehend, should be created by a ‘god’ who is angered by humans who have sex outside marriage in a bedroom in Carlisle, England (for example), when it is becoming more and more likely (almost inevitable) that extra-terrestrial life exists elsewhere in the universe – another nail in the coffin of religion. God created ET too!

So, religions try to adapt the science (unsuccessfully) to fit their own agenda, or reinterpret religious text to fit the science – “God didn’t literally create the universe in 7 days; a day in Biblical terms is intended to be regarded as a millennium.” – and that kind of bullshit.

As for you, “GoodScienceForYou” (or, judging by your profile pic, is your real name Alfred E. Neuman?), I suspect you have doubts in the back of your mind when you post your scientific ‘facts’ for all to see. If you don’t, then you are a bona fide delusional sap!

As we have already witnessed, you don’t understand Einsteinian relativity, and you believe oxygen originates from the sun when, in fact, it is a by-product of photosynthesis. (Yes, the sun creates small amounts of oxygen, but it doesn’t last long and would never reach the surface in order to be transported to earth.)

I assume you live in north America. (Correct me if I’m wrong.) Religion in your part of the world is a commercial venture because you live in one of the few truly secular nations on earth. There is a good reason why the people who introduced you to your religion would delude you – for your MONEY!

You have to ask yourself the question; why is the United Kingdom (where I live) one of the least religious nations on earth despite having a state religion (England and Scotland)? It isn’t as if we’re religiously ignorant. We still have state sanctioned Christian worship in our schools. The people of Britain know more about religion than their American counterparts, so how is it possible that the secular USA is more religious than almost every other nation in the developed world?

MONEY!

Perhaps, GoodScienceForYou, you are one of the religious conmen, trying to convince the naïve and the vulnerable to join your exploitative and morally abhorrent club. Or you have been exploited yourself.

If you have fallen for all the old tricks of mental manipulation and you are genuinely naïve and vulnerable, then I send you my apologies. As an ex-Amway recruit, I know how easy it is to fall into the trap of a wishful twisted world-view. There is no shame in acknowledging your faults, as long as you stride forward and move on.

As it is, I could be deluded, but I fear some people are more deluded than me.

Religion is Divisive

One of the problems I have with the argument that people of particular faiths were excluded from various aspects of society, is the idea that they were incapable of hiding their true religious identity in order to access those forbidden areas.

Without wanting to cause controversy, I have to say that if your religious identity is going to act against you (as in Nazi Germany), then you supress the identity part of your faith whilst retaining the spiritual part (as in Nazi Germany).

I guess it’s easy for me, as an atheist, to say ‘hide your religious affiliation’, but I do believe that openly wearing your faith in the form of a cross, skull-cap, hijab, turban, beard, etc. is a form of self-segregation.

Religion is divisive.

Christians Cannot Absolve Themselves

I’m not convinced that the BBC is biased towards Islam or Palestinians or Muslim terrorists or whatever. If I were a Jew or a Christian or a Sikh or a Young Earth Creationist, I might believe there is bias simply because the BBC treat all religions equally when, obviously, Judaism or Christianity or Sikhism or Young Earth Creationism is the only true religion.

And that isn’t surprising, seeing as there is an equal amount of evidence to support each of those religions – NONE!

DP111 wrote:
“Wrote the following almost 10 years ago.

Actually the Jihadis and the moderates work in concert. After each terrorist outrage, muslim moderates come forward with their “Islam is RoP” mantra, and asking for special privileges for muslims in the country. This is also followed up by demands that such and such activity or foreign policy be turned around to suit the muslim cause.”

The idea that moderate religion gives extremists credibility is not a new one. And it is NOT confined to the realms of Islam. It applies to ALL religions!

The problem we have today is that of religion as a form of identity rather than a belief system. We know far too many science things that convince us that The Garden of Eden didn’t actually exist and that the Earth orbits the Sun (Duh!).

If we give religion too much respect, we end up with a situation where the people within religious groups will push for more privileges. One problem we have here in the UK is state sanctioned Christian prayer both in schools and council meetings. Everyone is free to opt out of prayer time, but why should non-Christians (the majority of the UK population) have to opt out saying prayers? Surely it should be an opt-in arrangement.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/eric-pickles-welcomes-council-prayers-law

Just because Christians do not go around blowing themselves up or beheading innocent people, that does not absolve them from the causes of social divisiveness or give them an excuse for preferential treatment. Religion, when it is organised for the masses, is dangerous and potentially world-ending.

Let’s face it, what ISIS are propagating now is what Christianity was propagating only 300 years ago! Blasphemy law here in the UK was abolished in (drum-roll…) 2008. So, a law that would sit comfortably within the Sharia system was still in place in the British system until only 7 years ago!

The problem isn’t Islam – it is religious privilege and political correctness!

If we are no longer allowed to laugh at and/or ridicule stupid ideologies, then those stupid ideologies will no longer be stupid and actually become credible.

Can morality only come from God?

Percy says, “I have been kindly informed that everything I do that is good is a deed from God, but everything I do that is bad is a deed from the Devil.” I’m currently eating mushy peas so, are they good or bad? And is the fact I’m eating them good or bad?

These days religion seems to be less about God and more about the teachings of The Bible. Even the Vatican has declared the Theory of Evolution as fact, which raises many questions about the book of Genesis and its claim that God created the universe in 6 days and rested on the 7th, although why ‘almighty’ God needed to take a rest is anyone’s guess. Perhaps He isn’t so almighty after all. And when He said “Let there be light”, who was He speaking to? Himself?

Here in Britain, religious leaders seem to have conceded that there might be a chance that God does not exist after all. Either that or they realise that God is not cool and hip enough for today’s generation, or that the whole concept is out-dated and just seems a tad ridiculous. Of course, we’re all far too educated to take some religious claims seriously, irrespective of whether they are based on historical facts or fiction.

And so, rather than proclaim themselves Men of God or Representatives of God and such like, clergymen have reinvented themselves as ‘Guardians of Morality’. So, even if God doesn’t exist, we still need religion to guide us along the moral path.

Do we need ‘absolute’ moral guidance?

Religionists overwhelmingly claim that morality is absolute and can only come from religion. That morality is written in stone and cannot be changed. They always point to The Ten Commandments as an example of an absolute moral code. Their entire argument is based on the idea that because The Bible was written before we were born, our morality must come from The Bible even if we did not receive The Bible’s moral message directly. I say this from the perspective of a lay person because what religionists actually say is that our society is based on ‘Christian values’, which is a simplification of a complex discussion which questions what a Christian value actually is. There is also an un-shifting reluctance amongst the religious side of the discussion table to define morality openly and honestly, without claiming that God’s moral code is woven into our genes, therefore the debate is over.

Personally, I believe that moral acts are subjective – not absolute. There can be no situation, in which a moral decision must be made by the person with the power to alter the outcome, that requires a glance at the Moral Guide Book. We instinctively know right from wrong and we apply that instinct to suit the situation – the decision will always be that which avoids most upset or which achieves a peaceful and happy outcome.

But religionists would deny that we have an ‘instinct’ for morality. I say they are wrong!

Here’s a good example: The commandment Thou shalt not kill is a command which we would all agree with. Why would any sane person question it? Why would anyone want to kill? But take another commandment: You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain (He must believe in God or God will send him to Hell for eternity).

Yes. Questions!

If some commandments (there are actually 613) are obviously good and non-negotiable, then what about the others which are not so clear cut? Why do we find the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ as plain as ‘Thou shalt drink water when thirsty’?

And there’s the clue. We don’t need God or religion (they are 2 separate things) to tell us how to behave. We already know. How do we know? Well, that’s for another day, and another blog.