Do Not Bash Muslims!

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Do Not Bash Muslims!

Post by Spectrum »

Fanman wrote: February 25th, 2018, 7:46 am Spectrum:
Now at least we have identified the proximate root cause of the problem.
A major problem at present is the majority have not understood and accept the immutable Quran is the proximate root cause of the problem of Islamic-related evils.
If by “proximate root cause” you mean one of the main reasons then I agree. If you mean the root cause then I disagree. There are many factors to consider, such that isolating the root cause could just be an arbitrary speculation. I think that you underestimate and perhaps falsely categorise “the majority”. You seem to think that because majority don't share your insights, that they don't perceive things in the correct way. I don't think you can justify that viewpoint, because you're claiming that the majority don't understand, because they don't see things in the same way as you do. There can be many different views and perspectives without there being a prevailing one.
There is a hierarchy of root causes.
There is the ultimate root cause [a set], the proximate, and other secondary root causes, then there is the superficial causes..
The ultimate root cause - a set - [e.g. the existential crisis] is deeper than the proximate root cause [ the ideology of Islam].

One can test [theoretically] the impact of the proximate root cause [Islam] in this case.
Example, if we remove the Quran and thus Islam, there will be ZERO Quran-Islamic inspired evil acts and violence.
Of course in practice it is very complicated and complex, the task is how to convert this theory into practice without any side effects.

Note this;
1. Because you are disbelievers
"We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices."

It reads: "What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred,
this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list.

"The fact is,
even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam."
Read the above carefully and remember is strongly!

Note the above is from the horses' mouth as reflecting what is true as per the words of Allah in the Quran. I confirm what these jihadists claim are true as expressed in the Quran.

What the 'true' Muslims insist in the above is, foreign policy and other reasons are SECONDARY. The PRIMARY reason is ideological as reflected in the core ethos of the religion.

Despite the above, the majority of Muslims and non-Muslims are insisting foreign policy, poverty, etc. are the main reason for the terrible evil acts of SOME Muslims. This is pure denial of the truth. The majority are WRONG.
What I am stating is the truth. Prove to me I am wrong on this.

Whatever your views, the default of effective problem solving is one must trace the ultimate and proximate root cause then put resources to focus on them.
Thus our main task is to communicate this fact to the masses.
In addition, I have proposed many other strategies to counter the leverage of religions.
Note my OP, God is an Impossibility, The Idea of God is Psychological, etc. 
Once this fact is accepted by the masses, the religion of Islam will be slowly defanged and many Muslims will leave the religion or convert to alternative religion.
I believe if we strive hard, we will be able to defang Islam progressively.
Don't take this personally, but you can't expect me to take this seriously. Even if your ideas could be verified as being 100% right, absolutely perfect ( :D ) you aren't going to affect the kind of change that you envision - some people's beliefs are rooted deeper than empirical evidence can reach. Your arguments have even been rejected by atheists, be realistic dude.
As I had stated many times.
My optimism is based on existing trends of positive progress leveraged on the existing trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology.
I understand the results are not expected in the immediate future, but in a later future say within 50 years if not 75 or 100.
What is notable is the completion of the Humane Genome Project and there is already great progress in the Human Connectome Project to map the connections within the whole human brain.
Note I am optimistic because I keep track of these advancing trends.
Note the strategies I proposed above.
Once we have convinced a critical mass, the grip by the religion will loosen up.
As I had mentioned often, 200 years ago, no one could have predicted the end of "chattel slavery" by legal laws in all Nations in the world. But it happened.
There's difference between religion and slavery. Arguably slavery still exists in different forms. One of the main aspects of religion is belief in God. So for that aspect of religion to end there must be substantive proof that God doesn't exist. And even in the face of such proof, there's no guarantee that some people will not hold onto their beliefs. Also, bear in mind that some people believe that there are proofs of God's existence, how would you convince them otherwise? There are many other reasons why I think that religion will not end, and I'm sure that others can put forward their own ideas.
Yes, there are differences between religion and slavery, but there are similarities as well.
Note I mentioned there is the ultimate [a set] and proximate root causes.
In this case we are digging deeper into the ultimate root cause re the existential crisis and much deeper. Thence we will be able to loosen the crutch the majority have on religion to deal with the inherent unavoidable DNA based existential crisis.

Why I am so optimistic is, at present there are already existing non-theistic approaches put into practice, e.g. Buddhism and others, dealing quite effectively with the same existential crisis, albeit in a black-box approach.
So with the arrival of the more advanced knowledge we will be able to penetrate into the black box and resolve the inherent unavoidable existential crisis very effectively on a specific targeted basis.
It is so common, the authorities are always proclaiming to the World, "Islam is a Religion of Peace" whenever there is a terrorist attack.
At other times the authorities are not giving attention find out the real root cause, i.e. the evil elements in the Quran.
You're pointlessly bashing here... How do you know what the authorities are and are not doing? Are you privy to that information? Do you expect the authorities to confront the Ideology of Islam? In the interests of political relationships, the authorities respect people's rights to belief.
Prove and show to me the authorities are using the effective methods of dealing directly with the ideology of Islam.
Yes, I expect the authorities to confront the ideology of Islam directly but without provocations. It can be done on a basis of facts and truths without shaking the psychological foundations of the very sensitive religious prone people.

Note there are some movements in this directly but only very superficial thus not enough.
Even the most conservative of Islamic Government, i.e. Saudi Arabia is starting to confront the Islamic clergy but allowing women to drive, go out without a man as guardian, open their own business, etc.

It would only be something if and when the authorities acknowledge;
"yes, we admit there is something wrong with the religion itself as per evidence and fact and we need to do something about it."
What bias?
This is a fact.

IMV, it assumes that religion is a special case in causes of evil, and that religion is a special case in causes of corruption. Whilst religion can be a cause of both, it is not the only cause of evil and corruption as the author implies. It is the authors bias to conclude that religion is a special case, not a fact. There are any number of things that can cause good people to do evil by corrupting their sense of ethics - that religion is one of those things does not as a fact, make it a special case.
The quote by Weinberg do not imply religion is the SOLE cause of driving good people to do evil.
The implication is an attack on the assumption that religions are by default good and peaceful.
With empirical evidences it is proven SOME religion do inspire good people to do evil.
Yes, it is a moral obligation of ALL humans to respect the basic human dignity of another human being. There is a logical moral argument for it, as otherwise if you don't you are kicking your own ass. This is argued within the Philosophy of Morality. I won't do it here.
Therefore any human who doesn't conform to this "moral obligation" isn't a true Scotsman? :)
You are misusing the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy in this case.
I suggest you read up to understand fully on the Philosophy involving the concept of Basic Human Dignity. This is the basis why Jesus went to the extreme of commanding Christians to 'love your enemies' [not blindly and stupidly].
As I had stated, bashing is like crying over spilt milk. The most is for you to vent your anger, frustrations and achieving nothing for humanity.
I don't think that when people bash they expect to make a difference. There are political ways and means of affecting change.
Note the impact from the evil prone Muslims [SOME] is getting very critical thus we should focus on the proximate root cause rather than making noises.
You have a choice of two actions, i.e. to bash or to focus on the root causes. Since humans has limited resources, effort and time, it would be more productive [optimal] on prevention to a problem rather than making noises about it.
It would be wiser to redirect your effort to focus in preventive measures.
That is a false dichotomy, and it also depends on what you perceive as being "optimal". Change can occur naturally over time, even without outside intervention things can become outdated/anachronistic. You need to have a little faith.
Yes, change will happened over time, but we need to focus laser-like on the said problem which is very critical.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: Do Not Bash Muslims!

Post by Fanman »

Spectrum:
The quote by Weinberg do not imply religion is the SOLE cause of driving good people to do evil.
The implication is an attack on the assumption that religions are by default good and peaceful.
With empirical evidences it is proven SOME religion do inspire good people to do evil.
But he expressly claims: “But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” Which means that he thinks that religion is the sole cause of good people doing evil things. He does not give reference to any other causes or claim that it is an attack on the assumption that religions are by default good and peaceful - that is seemingly your interpretation. Why should we add implications of anything other than what he actually stated, such as to say it is the implication? How can we be sure that our interpretations are correct if they aren't directly supported by the quote?
You are misusing the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy in this case.


So what do you think is implied about anyone who doesn't conform to this “moral obligation” maxim?
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Do Not Bash Muslims!

Post by Spectrum »

Fanman wrote: February 26th, 2018, 8:37 am Spectrum:
The quote by Weinberg do not imply religion is the SOLE cause of driving good people to do evil.
The implication is an attack on the assumption that religions are by default good and peaceful.
With empirical evidences it is proven SOME religion do inspire good people to do evil.
But he expressly claims: “But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” Which means that he thinks that religion is the sole cause of good people doing evil things. He does not give reference to any other causes or claim that it is an attack on the assumption that religions are by default good and peaceful - that is seemingly your interpretation. Why should we add implications of anything other than what he actually stated, such as to say it is the implication? How can we be sure that our interpretations are correct if they aren't directly supported by the quote?
The context and intention of the author was to highlight the cons of religions.

I am sure the author understand the quite obvious there are many things that can turn good people to evil, e.g. money is the root of all evils, sex, drugs, hunger, etc.
You are misusing the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy in this case.


So what do you think is implied about anyone who doesn't conform to this “moral obligation” maxim?
To explain is a long story within the Philosophy of Morality.

Note here is one point from Burning Ghost;
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... 09#p306109
I don't care for zealots (religious or otherwise.) I am happy to listen to them though and I think we should all do so quietly and with dignity rather than feeding the hatred. I know all hatred is misplaced, so I don't fret about it too much any more.

To paraphrase:

"He who despises himself must respect himself as one who despises."
- Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil.

The mistake of secular thinkers is to too often assume the religiously dogmatic lack rational capacities. They can be reached, but it is a slow and grueling task where pain and suffering will be taken on by both parties.

To take on the words of Nietzsche we can well say - He who hates others necessarily must hate himself and know their faults as his own; therefore he must respect them as he respects himself because he understands the extent of evil in every man's breast.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: Do Not Bash Muslims!

Post by Fanman »

Spectrum:

Weinberg's quote:

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
The context and intention of the author was to highlight the cons of religions.
The context seems general as he is not identifying any specific religion. I think that to say he's highlighting the cons of religion (whilst that is right) is putting it lightly. It is a very scathing view of religion that is bias in my opinion. Religion is by no means perfect, but I don't think that it is an insult to human dignity, or the only reason that good people do evil things, as he states.
I am sure the author understand the quite obvious there are many things that can turn good people to evil, e.g. money is the root of all evils, sex, drugs, hunger, etc.


I'm not sure that he does. He doesn't state anything which implies that he attributes good people doing evil things to anything other than religion, so why accredit him with that understanding? As according to what he says, he seems to believe that only religion can cause good people to do evil things.
So what do you think is implied about anyone who doesn't conform to this “moral obligation” maxim?
To explain is a long story within the Philosophy of Morality.
It seems clear that you think something is implied about anyone who doesn't conform to this “moral obligation” maxim by engaging in bashing. It doesn't matter (to me) so much what you think is implied about a person, but that you think something is implied – which I disagree with. You have already stated that it is normal to bash culprits, and you've also engaged in bashing of the authorities. So it seems inconsistent that you would object to bashing, citing that we have a “moral obligation” not to engage in it - whilst doing it. Regardless, I think what you've shown (albeit not intentionally) is that bashing is a matter of preference.
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Do Not Bash Muslims!

Post by Spectrum »

Fanman wrote: February 27th, 2018, 5:57 am Spectrum:

Weinberg's quote:

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
The context and intention of the author was to highlight the cons of religions.
The context seems general as he is not identifying any specific religion. I think that to say he's highlighting the cons of religion (whilst that is right) is putting it lightly. It is a very scathing view of religion that is bias in my opinion. Religion is by no means perfect, but I don't think that it is an insult to human dignity, or the only reason that good people do evil things, as he states.
I am sure the author understand the quite obvious there are many things that can turn good people to evil, e.g. money is the root of all evils, sex, drugs, hunger, etc.


I'm not sure that he does. He doesn't state anything which implies that he attributes good people doing evil things to anything other than religion, so why accredit him with that understanding? As according to what he says, he seems to believe that only religion can cause good people to do evil things.
This is not a big issue.

Weinberg is definitely not stupid.
Note Principle of charity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

Why Weinberg's quote stood out is because generally religion is always assumed to be good and peaceful. Weinberg's quote resonate with many because there is the truth some religions do influence good people to do evil.
So what do you think is implied about anyone who doesn't conform to this “moral obligation” maxim?
To explain is a long story within the Philosophy of Morality.
It seems clear that you think something is implied about anyone who doesn't conform to this “moral obligation” maxim by engaging in bashing. It doesn't matter (to me) so much what you think is implied about a person, but that you think something is implied – which I disagree with. You have already stated that it is normal to bash culprits, and you've also engaged in bashing of the authorities. So it seems inconsistent that you would object to bashing, citing that we have a “moral obligation” not to engage in it - whilst doing it. Regardless, I think what you've shown (albeit not intentionally) is that bashing is a matter of preference.
The main point of the OP is because the bashing of all Muslims is definitely wrong, i.e. fallacy hasty generalization.

But I am proposing in this particular case we should not even bash the culprits because in doing so it prevent the majority from focusing attention on the proximate root cause, i.e. which is the ideology. This is a fact.

Yes, bashing = severe criticisms [not physically beating] should be applied in the right degrees, at the right time. What is wrong with criticizing of one's idea?

Note the above are my suggestions and views towards achieving certain results, if you want to continue to bash Muslims that is your discretion.

Another objective of the OP is in many places moderators and posters are accusing me of 'Muslim bashing' [also as racist, Islamophobe, etc.] even when I am presented justified arguments based on evidence.
If anyone were to accuse me of 'Muslim bashing' then my defense is this OP where I insist we do not bash Muslims.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: Do Not Bash Muslims!

Post by Fanman »

Spectrum:

How would you know what Weinberg does and does not understand based upon the interpretation of a single quote?
The main point of the OP is because the bashing of all Muslims is definitely wrong, i.e. fallacy hasty generalization.
I think it is wrong to bash innocent people because of what they believe, but I don't think that its wrong to bash the culprits of terrorist acts.
But I am proposing in this particular case we should not even bash the culprits because in doing so it prevent the majority from focusing attention on the proximate root cause, i.e. which is the ideology. This is a fact.
A fact you say, which is supported by what evidence?
Yes, bashing = severe criticisms [not physically beating] should be applied in the right degrees, at the right time. What is wrong with criticizing of one's idea?
This seems to be an is / ought dilemma. How can we formally define if and when it is acceptable to bash? Isn't engaging in bashing a matter of personal preference or a moral issue, rather than a straight-forward conclusion?
Note the above are my suggestions and views towards achieving certain results, if you want to continue to bash Muslims that is your discretion.


I generally don't bash people based upon what they are, but upon the basis of what they do. So I wouldn't bash a Muslim due to the fact that they're a Muslim. However, if they commit an act of terror, I would bash them solely because of what they did. What religion they're affiliated to doesn't make a difference to me.
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Do Not Bash Muslims!

Post by Spectrum »

Fanman wrote: February 28th, 2018, 1:55 pm
But I am proposing in this particular case we should not even bash the culprits because in doing so it prevent the majority from focusing attention on the proximate root cause, i.e. which is the ideology. This is a fact.
A fact you say, which is supported by what evidence?
Note this video where Bush insist [in various places] the problem is with the evil Muslims and NOT Islam which is a religion of peace.
By saying Islam is a religion of peace, attention is diverted from the contents of the Constitution [the Quran]
Here by Cameron;
There are many other assertions by various world leaders and those in authorities who claim Islam is a religion of peace and the trouble makers are SOME evil Muslims.

This is the reason why the authorities are not directing their attention to the contents of the ideology in the Quran.
Anyone trying to point to the Quran as the proximate root cause is branded an Islamophobe, racists, bigots, etc.
Yes, bashing = severe criticisms [not physically beating] should be applied in the right degrees, at the right time. What is wrong with criticizing of one's idea?
This seems to be an is / ought dilemma. How can we formally define if and when it is acceptable to bash? Isn't engaging in bashing a matter of personal preference or a moral issue, rather than a straight-forward conclusion?
One need to cultivate wisdom to be able to do so.
Note the above are my suggestions and views towards achieving certain results, if you want to continue to bash Muslims that is your discretion.

I generally don't bash people based upon what they are, but upon the basis of what they do. So I wouldn't bash a Muslim due to the fact that they're a Muslim. However, if they commit an act of terror, I would bash them solely because of what they did. What religion they're affiliated to doesn't make a difference to me.
Bashing is a very natural instinctual response.
I don't deny I do bash but I try to be very mindful of doing it appropriately.

However in the case of Islamic terror, one need to be very mindful as I had stated such bashing do not serve an effective purpose but rather it is a net-negative in deflecting one from the proximate root cause of the problem.

Other areas of bashing [severely criticizing] employees or children are often counter productive. The advice is always to understand the root cause that cause bad behaviors.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: Do Not Bash Muslims!

Post by Fanman »

Spectrum:

Hmm, I think you have a point in that, if the Koran itself contains verses that promote hate towards non-believers and those verses are followed, then there are sufficient grounds to claim that the Koran is a cause of violence. But I think it should also be considered that many Muslims do not act on the verses that promote hate, and conduct their beliefs in peace. Which leads to a point - if the majority of Muslims conduct their beliefs in peace, then the claim that Islam is a religion of peace is not spurious and the authorities therefore make a valid point. The acts of some violent fundamentalists do not necessarily define the whole ideology, the acts of the majority (statistically) give us a clearer insight into the nature of the ideology, in this case Islam.
One need to cultivate wisdom to be able to do so.
I agree. Bashing seems to be a natural reaction to circumstances that we find adverse or incongruent with what we think is “right”. So it takes wisdom (or common sense) to understand why, when and where to engage in bashing appropriately.
Bashing is a very natural instinctual response.
I don't deny I do bash but I try to be very mindful of doing it appropriately.


That's reasonable, as bashing seems to be based upon personal preference and perspective. I think that personal circumstances and experiences can have an effect on who we bash and why. I think that the more objectivity we approach a subject matter with, the less likely we are to bash it.
However in the case of Islamic terror, one need to be very mindful as I had stated such bashing do not serve an effective purpose but rather it is a net-negative in deflecting one from the proximate root cause of the problem.
I'm not sure about this. I don't think that bashing Islamic terrorists precludes us from seeing the problems with Islamic ideology – as it is our natural reaction to the terrorist acts. I think its very unlikely that the authorities would confront the ideology of Islam due to political reasons - doing so could create a greater problem. I think that the conflict and animosity such a confrontation or initiative would cause would play right into the terrorist's proverbial hands. It would (IMV) be seen as The West forcing their views upon Islam.
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 948
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Do Not Bash Muslims!

Post by Karpel Tunnel »

Spectrum wrote: February 25th, 2018, 1:34 am
Fanman wrote: February 24th, 2018, 2:27 pm Karpel Tunnel,



Noted. At least it will be interesting to see how he argues, bearing that incongruence in mind. He cannot eschew bashing (of any type or degree), whilst bashing the authorities, as doing so clearly makes him logically inconsistent. Maybe he doesn't see it that way? We'll have to wait for his explanation.
This is a question of optimality to achieve the expected results within difference circumstances.
It is not optimal to be consistent when the conditions are different.

We avoid bashing the perpetrators to get to the root causes to effect optimal results.
We have to bash the authorities and other 'ostriches' to get to the same root causes to get the same optimal results.
If we do not vary the above accordingly we will not achieve the same optimal results, i.e. prevent, reduce and eliminate Islamic-based evils.
Is there evidence that 1) people are restricted from criticizing Islam/the Koran when they bash terrorists? It seems to me most people are aware of the problems with the Koran, if not in the specific details, when they criticize them. Those who bash them are specific about their religion for a reason. You repeatedly present it as a choice. We focus on core causes or others. I don't see that. I see both things happening. What evidence do you have that if we stop bashing the individual Muslim terrorists we will spend more time attacking the root cause? As for myself, I tend to focus on both. I don't see people as machines. And I think it is important not to assume that people MUST follow the root cause, since a) this is clearly not the case adn b) treating people as if they are making choices is more likely to make them think they can make choices about what they believe 2) is there evidence that bashing the authorities works? And if it does, why are they, equally determined humans to the Muslims, able to change in relation to this bashing, whereas the Muslims cannot? 3) Bashing terrorist Muslims and believers in general is not simply about changing the minds of Muslims who have or will commit crimes, but also to openly criticize all the non-violent Muslims who a) approve of the Koran b) to some degree are sympathetic with the terrorists but will not be violent themselves.

I see no reason NOT to do both things. Attack the Koran and criticize people in general for believing in something that is damaging - the Koran. I see no reason to eliminate one tool. I see not reason why using both minimizes the use of one. I am extremely skeptical that going on the assumption that people do not bear responsibility for their actions is helpful in general. This has all sorts of side effects, where we are telling people that books make people kill, period. I think that is incorrect, but also it is a very rigid determinism that can allow people not to mull over their actions. It adds to the kind of thinking that in I am a Muslim so therefore I perform action X is an inevitablility.

Your position also looks only at the effect on the perpetrators. People need to react also. It is human to blame the people who commit crimes for their crimes. To be angry. To bash. To tell people that they must alter their behavior and to hold them responsible for it while not holding the criminal responsible for their 'statements' is a) not logically defensible but further b) probably not healthy for the people who are upset about the crimes.
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: Do Not Bash Muslims!

Post by Fanman »

Spectrum:
Other areas of bashing [severely criticizing] employees or children are often counter productive. The advice is always to understand the root cause that cause bad behaviors.


I generally agree, but IMV no system is perfect. I think that one of the problems with root cause analysis in problem solving, is that the depth of the root and the systems that proceed from it can be extremely deeply embedded. Whether that “root” is a so called immutable holy text or the natural functioning of the human brain. IMV, there is an inherent danger in removing the root causes you've specified, as it may cause more harm than good. The Koran may be a cause of harm, but it is also a huge part of a belief system that many people base their whole life upon – it could be called a part of a believer's essence. If we simply remove it, what would those people then have? How can we be sure that the gap created in their lives would be filled with something positive, would they still see a reason to be decent human-beings without the belief that their God is there? What if they lose the ability to cope without their ideology? There is a risk that in removing the root cause, you also remove the positive parts of the system it supports as well as the negative.
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Do Not Bash Muslims!

Post by Spectrum »

Fanman wrote: March 2nd, 2018, 6:30 am Spectrum:
Hmm, I think you have a point in that, if the Koran itself contains verses that promote hate towards non-believers and those verses are followed, then there are sufficient grounds to claim that the Koran is a cause of violence.
I have done a reasonable extent of research and the Quran do contain loads of evil laden verses with a main thrust of an attitude of evil towards non-Muslims [Kafirs].

see this graph..
https://www.cspii.org/uploads/content_i ... r_LOGO.png
More than half [51%] of the text of the Trilogy [Quran, Sira, Ahadith] is devoted to the Kafir. It is not about being a Muslim, but about the unbeliever.
The original meaning of the word Kafir is “one who covers or conceals the known truth”.
A Kafir knows that the Koran is true but denies it.

The Koran says that the Kafir may be deceived, hated, enslaved, mocked, tortured and killed.
The Kafir is everyone who does not accept that Allah is the only god and Mohammed is His messenger. The word “Kafir” is not neutral though; it is a very negative expression.
The Kafir is hated by Allah and Mohammed fought with them and tried to force them into submission to Islam. Kafir is actually the word that best defines what Political Islam is.
https://www.cspii.org/en/articles/statistical-islam
But I think it should also be considered that many Muslims do not act on the verses that promote hate, and conduct their beliefs in peace. Which leads to a point - if the majority of Muslims conduct their beliefs in peace, then the claim that Islam is a religion of peace is not spurious and the authorities therefore make a valid point.
What is Islam is 100% compliance to the Quran's 6,236 verses.
In the Quran, >51% of verses contain evil laden elements of various degrees - low to high.
Therefore the statement 'Islam is a religion of peace' is a blatant lie.

What the authorities should say is; the majority of Muslims are peaceful people and practices only the good elements of Islam. This is the truth and valid point, and give room there are evil elements within Islam. It would be more truthful for the authorities to state the fact, 51% of the verses are targeted negatively with hatred toward non-Muslims [for obvious reason they will not do this].
The acts of some violent fundamentalists do not necessarily define the whole ideology, the acts of the majority (statistically) give us a clearer insight into the nature of the ideology, in this case Islam.
What is frightening is the acts of 'SOME' violent fundamentalists are based on the true doctrines of Islam.
The term 'some' need to be qualified.
There a range of degree of evilness to the loads of evil elements in the Quran.
From polls by PEW, it was indicated a large percentage Muslims agrees with the various range of evil elements in the Quran, e.g. suicide bombings, killing of apostates, flogging, chopping of hand, war with non-believers.
Pew Research (2010): 84% of Egyptian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
86% of Jordanian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
30% of Indonesian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
76% of Pakistanis support death the penalty for leaving Islam
51% of Nigerian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/mus ... hezbollah/
The critical point here is 'some' in the case of Islam and Muslim can mean a VERY significant quantum.

If 10% of Muslim -that is 150 millions
If 20% of Muslim -that is 300 millions :shock: :shock:

If only 20% of Muslims has an active tendency to war against non-Muslims that would be a pool of 300 [to be reduced for precision] millions Muslims around the World.
Note even ONE lone wolf can already caused terrible evil acts and violence.
This is why it is so real and evident there is so much terrible evils and violence committed by SOME evil prone Muslims.

This is why we must not focus on the SOME evil extremists but direct our attention to the evil elements of the ideology that catalyzed the evil prone [from pool of 300 millions] to commit terrible evils and violence.
However in the case of Islamic terror, one need to be very mindful as I had stated such bashing do not serve an effective purpose but rather it is a net-negative in deflecting one from the proximate root cause of the problem.
I'm not sure about this. I don't think that bashing Islamic terrorists precludes us from seeing the problems with Islamic ideology – as it is our natural reaction to the terrorist acts. I think its very unlikely that the authorities would confront the ideology of Islam due to political reasons - doing so could create a greater problem. I think that the conflict and animosity such a confrontation or initiative would cause would play right into the terrorist's proverbial hands. It would (IMV) be seen as The West forcing their views upon Islam.
I agree if at present the authorities [if they know the facts of evil from Islam itself] jump to voice and blast this fact and blame Islam, then there would be loads of political and other problems.

If the objective facts/truths [Islam in part is inherently evil] are disclosed there is no question of the West forcing their views upon Islam. Truths are never forced but by default has to be accepted.

The optimal approach would be this;
  • 1.First the facts [Islam in part is inherently evil] must be proven, justified then communicated for consensus among the authorities.
    2. To apply wisdom and EQ to how to get the message across to all concern [including the Muslims] without triggering drastic emotional reactions from the Muslims. This will be a very complicated but feasible task.
    3. I am optimistic this can be done without triggering violent reactions given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology in all fields of knowledge.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Do Not Bash Muslims!

Post by Spectrum »

Karpel Tunnel wrote: March 2nd, 2018, 9:38 am
Spectrum wrote: February 25th, 2018, 1:34 am This is a question of optimality to achieve the expected results within difference circumstances.
It is not optimal to be consistent when the conditions are different.

We avoid bashing the perpetrators to get to the root causes to effect optimal results.
We have to bash the authorities and other 'ostriches' to get to the same root causes to get the same optimal results.
If we do not vary the above accordingly we will not achieve the same optimal results, i.e. prevent, reduce and eliminate Islamic-based evils.
Is there evidence that 1) people are restricted from criticizing Islam/the Koran when they bash terrorists? It seems to me most people are aware of the problems with the Koran, if not in the specific details, when they criticize them. Those who bash them are specific about their religion for a reason. You repeatedly present it as a choice. We focus on core causes or others. I don't see that. I see both things happening. What evidence do you have that if we stop bashing the individual Muslim terrorists we will spend more time attacking the root cause? As for myself, I tend to focus on both. I don't see people as machines. And I think it is important not to assume that people MUST follow the root cause, since a) this is clearly not the case adn b) treating people as if they are making choices is more likely to make them think they can make choices about what they believe
Note the two videos I linked above.
In both cases [as with the rest] the authorities stated 'Islam is a religion of peace' and the perpetrators are extremists who are not Muslims. This implied people are restricted from criticizing the religion, because Islam is a religion peace.

It is so obvious, those [around the world] who criticize the religion of Islam are condemned socially,punished and condemned to death in some countries.

The evils and violence from Islamists is real, e.g.
Image
If we put aside condemning and blaming the perpetrators, it is only very logically we will to dig deeper into the ideology, i.e. the Quran to get to the proximate root cause. This direction is obvious because the extremists always shout Allah-u-Akbar and quote verses from the Quran to justify their divine duty of evil acts and violence.

2) is there evidence that bashing the authorities works? And if it does, why are they, equally determined humans to the Muslims, able to change in relation to this bashing, whereas the Muslims cannot?
When the authorities state 'Islam is a religion of peace' this is a blatant lie.
Bashing the authorities is to get them to understand the truth.
The problem at present is the religion of Islam is so well veiled that it is not easy to dig and present the truth. But this can be done if sufficient effort is put into it.
3) Bashing terrorist Muslims and believers in general is not simply about changing the minds of Muslims who have or will commit crimes, but also to openly criticize all the non-violent Muslims who a) approve of the Koran b) to some degree are sympathetic with the terrorists but will not be violent themselves.
As I had stated 'bashing' is a very natural instinctively response.
However I stated in this specific and special case of Islam we set aside the bashing of the perpetrators and focus on the proximate root cause.
If we insist we do not bash Muslims, the question will be 'then bash who' since the evil acts and violence are so real? From this attention will be directed to the ideology and its evil elements itself.
I see no reason NOT to do both things. Attack the Koran and criticize people in general for believing in something that is damaging - the Koran. I see no reason to eliminate one tool. I see not reason why using both minimizes the use of one. I am extremely skeptical that going on the assumption that people do not bear responsibility for their actions is helpful in general. This has all sorts of side effects, where we are telling people that books make people kill, period. I think that is incorrect, but also it is a very rigid determinism that can allow people not to mull over their actions. It adds to the kind of thinking that in I am a Muslim so therefore I perform action X is an inevitablility.
You can do both, say the effort and attention is 10% bashing Muslim and 90% bashing the ideology.
As I had stated this is a special case for Islam that we should focus our attention on the Quran and its ideology.
It is not easy for non-Muslims and even Muslims themselves to understand the Quran and its ethos. Thus it would be more efficient to give full attention to the ideology rather than divide our attention to bashing Muslims.
Besides as you implied, bashing the Muslims will eventually end with attention to the Quran, so why not go straight to it.
Your position also looks only at the effect on the perpetrators. People need to react also. It is human to blame the people who commit crimes for their crimes. To be angry. To bash. To tell people that they must alter their behavior and to hold them responsible for it while not holding the criminal responsible for their 'statements' is a) not logically defensible but further b) probably not healthy for the people who are upset about the crimes.
I agree, what you state above is natural and instinctive.
But it would be wiser to modulate one's emotion and prioritize one effort to what is critical, note Pareto's 20/80.
Note what is happening is the evil prone believers are triggered by evil elements in the Quran.
If we direct attention to the Quran and get rid of the evil elements in the Quran or get rid of the Quran, then there is no more triggers to motivate these evil prones to commit Islamic-related evil acts and violence. QED.

The other alternative, i.e. alter the behavior of the already evil inclined people [individually] to do good is not easy [very complex]. What is most effective is to remove the stimuli [Quran or evil verses] that trigger them to commit evil acts.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: Do Not Bash Muslims!

Post by Fanman »

Spectrum:

I think that your reply to me is a very good post, to which I'll probably respond later. As someone who's criticised and poked fun at your views, I should also let you know when I think you've got things right.
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: Do Not Bash Muslims!

Post by Fanman »

Spectrum:
What is Islam is 100% compliance to the Quran's 6,236 verses.
In the Quran, >51% of verses contain evil laden elements of various degrees - low to high. 
Therefore the statement 'Islam is a religion of peace' is a blatant lie.
I don't think that it is a “blatant lie”, I think that the view that Islam is a religion of peace is based upon the majority of Muslims being peaceful. I'm not saying that view is right, because the ideology contains aspects which can be considered “evil”, but the authorities aren't going to attack Islam publicly even if they privately hold the view that the ideology has dangerous elements. Maintaining political correctness and relationships are too important for the authorities to risk damaging in a multicultural society where, everyone has a right as to their beliefs.
What the authorities should say is; the majority of Muslims are peaceful people and practices only the good elements of Islam. This is the truth and valid point, and give room there are evil elements within Islam. It would be more truthful for the authorities to state the fact, 51% of the verses are targeted negatively with hatred toward non-Muslims [for obvious reason they will not do this].


I'm not sure about “should say”, but you make a valid point IMV. I'm sure the authorities are aware of the statistics, but I agree they will not take that stance. The issue of attacking an ideology such as Islam is very sensitive, doing so would perhaps result in protests among other forms of resistance, it would be a political nightmare.
If the objective facts/truths [Islam in part is inherently evil] are disclosed there is no question of the West forcing their views upon Islam. Truths are never forced but by default has to be accepted.
If the Koran contains verses that directly instruct Muslims to harm non-believers then the fact these verses are “evil” is already known by Muslims, as I doubt that such verses can be interpreted in any other way. The only answer (I see) is that peaceful Muslims choose not to put those verses into practice, and focus on the peaceful aspects of the religion. I am hesitant to use the word “truth”, I think that Muslims believe the Koran contains the words of God and accept the aggressive stance towards non-believers, but they don't practice harming non-believers. Some Muslims (possibly the majority) may choose to proselytise rather than harm non-believers, redirecting the Koran's hatred of non-believers into a compassionate perspective – trying to “save” people like the Christian approach.
The optimal approach would be this;
1.First the facts [Islam in part is inherently evil] must be proven, justified then communicated for consensus among the authorities.
2. To apply wisdom and EQ to how to get the message across to all concern [including the Muslims] without triggering drastic emotional reactions from the Muslims. This will be a very complicated but feasible task.
3. I am optimistic this can be done without triggering violent reactions given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology in all fields of knowledge.
As a concept I don't think this is too bad, but I don't think that it can be applied practically. You cannot legislate for how people (individuals) are going to react when their core beliefs are challenged. And if you could, how would adapt your approach? Even if you take the softest approach possible applying wisdom and "EQ" and present all the possible facts, there's no guarantee that you will have any effect in changing / influencing minds. People may perceive any such action as an attack on their treasured belief system, and resist as they see fit. Also, people are already aware of the facts relating to belief in God and following religious ideologies, but they still choose to have faith. It is perhaps impossible to create a system that everyone will adhere to / agree with, as IMV people are just not that mechanical. The problem I see with your idea is “choice”, in that you cannot force people to accept your ideology over the one they already believe in, especially if their ideology has perceived benefits for them. You can only present them with an alternative.
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Do Not Bash Muslims!

Post by Spectrum »

Fanman wrote: March 4th, 2018, 7:35 am Spectrum:
What is Islam is 100% compliance to the Quran's 6,236 verses.
In the Quran, >51% of verses contain evil laden elements of various degrees - low to high. 
Therefore the statement 'Islam is a religion of peace' is a blatant lie.
I don't think that it is a “blatant lie”, I think that the view that Islam is a religion of peace is based upon the majority of Muslims being peaceful. I'm not saying that view is right, because the ideology contains aspects which can be considered “evil”, but the authorities aren't going to attack Islam publicly even if they privately hold the view that the ideology has dangerous elements. Maintaining political correctness and relationships are too important for the authorities to risk damaging in a multicultural society where, everyone has a right as to their beliefs.
If not 'blatant' it is still technically a falsehood.

Islam is a religion with very specific conditions, i.e.
  • 1. Verbatim words [in Arabic] directly From Allah to
    2. Angel Gabriel to
    3. Muhammad in Mecca and Medina,
    4. Revealed within 610 -632 AD,
    5. In '6236' verses and 'X' number of words,
    6. Memorized and written by Scribes and compiled into the existing Arabic Quran.
    7. Verbatim since 632 to 2018 and the future.
    8. Allah commanded the perfected Quran [5:3] is immutable


Based the above very strict conditions, Islam [as verifiable] cannot be a religion of peace but a religion that is inherently very evil.
The above conditions of verbatim is one reason why Islam per se cannot be reformed.

I understand the majority practices Islam where they ignore the evil laden verses. But because there are Muslims who practice Islam and commit evil and violence which is also Islam proper, these moderates have to qualify their status. The moderates cannot claim what they practice is THE Islam per se which in fact is not in accordance to the above listed strict conditions.

I understand politicians will play their political games of political correctness but humanely the truth must prevails. Those who are responsible citizens of humanity [..I claim to be one] must push for the truths and deal with the problem optimally [with wisdom] without severe consequences.

What the authorities should say is; the majority of Muslims are peaceful people and practices only the good elements of Islam. This is the truth and valid point, and give room there are evil elements within Islam. It would be more truthful for the authorities to state the fact, 51% of the verses are targeted negatively with hatred toward non-Muslims [for obvious reason they will not do this].

I'm not sure about “should say”, but you make a valid point IMV. I'm sure the authorities are aware of the statistics, but I agree they will not take that stance. The issue of attacking an ideology such as Islam is very sensitive, doing so would perhaps result in protests among other forms of resistance, it would be a political nightmare.
I insist in this case the authorities 'should' but it is a question of how to do it without the expected consequences from the very sensitive theists.
This is why, elsewhere we need to understand the neuro-psychological basis of why the majority of theists are so sensitive to the extreme of killing those who merely draw cartoons of their founder.
If the objective facts/truths [Islam in part is inherently evil] are disclosed there is no question of the West forcing their views upon Islam. Truths are never forced but by default has to be accepted.
If the Koran contains verses that directly instruct Muslims to harm non-believers then the fact these verses are “evil” is already known by Muslims, as I doubt that such verses can be interpreted in any other way. The only answer (I see) is that peaceful Muslims choose not to put those verses into practice, and focus on the peaceful aspects of the religion. I am hesitant to use the word “truth”, I think that Muslims believe the Koran contains the words of God and accept the aggressive stance towards non-believers, but they don't practice harming non-believers. Some Muslims (possibly the majority) may choose to proselytise rather than harm non-believers, redirecting the Koran's hatred of non-believers into a compassionate perspective – trying to “save” people like the Christian approach.
There are those who are aware of the evil verses in the Quran.
But the majority cannot 'see' them due to confirmation bias, e.g. not seeing the 500 pound gorrilla in the room.

What is critical as I had pointed out, if only 20% are sensitive enough there is a pool of 300 million evil prone Muslims around world as a time-bomb which can explode any time. The reality of this is so evident.
The optimal approach would be this;
1.First the facts [Islam in part is inherently evil] must be proven, justified then communicated for consensus among the authorities.
2. To apply wisdom and EQ to how to get the message across to all concern [including the Muslims] without triggering drastic emotional reactions from the Muslims. This will be a very complicated but feasible task.
3. I am optimistic this can be done without triggering violent reactions given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology in all fields of knowledge.
As a concept I don't think this is too bad, but I don't think that it can be applied practically. You cannot legislate for how people (individuals) are going to react when their core beliefs are challenged. And if you could, how would adapt your approach?

Even if you take the softest approach possible applying wisdom and "EQ" and present all the possible facts, there's no guarantee that you will have any effect in changing / influencing minds. People may perceive any such action as an attack on their treasured belief system, and resist as they see fit. Also, people are already aware of the facts relating to belief in God and following religious ideologies, but they still choose to have faith. It is perhaps impossible to create a system that everyone will adhere to / agree with, as IMV people are just not that mechanical. The problem I see with your idea is “choice”, in that you cannot force people to accept your ideology over the one they already believe in, especially if their ideology has perceived benefits for them. You can only present them with an alternative.
Legislation is the last resort.

My hope is the Human Connectome Project
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/
and other new discoveries on how the brain works.

Once this project has reached it advance stage [in 50, 75, 100 year??] it will be easily available for any individual to find out how their brain and which neurons are triggering them to be theistic and how the idea of God arose to deal with the existential crisis.
Then there will be easily available foolproof means to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis and theists will voluntarily give up believing in a God proven to be illusory.

I am also optimistic because at present, the Eastern religions [Buddhism, Jainism, etc.] which are non-theistic are already doing that without any side effects of evil and violence.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021