Who is Right vs. What is Right: Finding Solutions Instead of Being Part of the Problem

Heretics Crusade by Guy DeWhitney

I actually see a sea change happening in the West regarding Islamic aggressions. It will most certainly still be a long and twisted road but, I do think that it is inevitable that the Western ways will prevail.

The total flip-flop of governmental concerns regarding potential violence from Islam and Christianity in the eyes of the law is utterly insane. It only makes sense to formulate an objective, constitutionally sound, policy/strategy for identifying and dealing with all ideologically driven extremist groups that might pose a threat to anyone’s life, limb or property.

Unless we wish to dispose of the First Amendment we must always forbid to the government the ability to say “This is a real religion but, that one is false” or we will quickly find that one denomination/trend in theology has become dominant. I for one would rather keep my freedoms, even if it is a harder road.

The best test I have ever seen for identifying worrisome religious groups is

‘THE Advanced ISAAC BONEWITS’ CULT DANGER EVALUATION FRAME’

I have edited it a bit for space and clarity…

In order to utilize the frame, assign each item a value from 1 to 10 points, with 1 being “Low” and 10 being “High“. Religions with total scores towards the high end of the scale are more than likely un-healthy groups for anyone.

1. Internal Control:
Amount of internal political and social power exercised by leader(s) over members; lack of clearly defined organizational rights for members.

2. External Control:
Amount of external political and social influence desired or obtained; emphasis on directing members’ external political and social behavior.

3. Wisdom/Knowledge Claimed by leader(s):
Amount of infallibility declared or implied about decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations;…

4. Wisdom/Knowledge Credited to leader(s) by members:
Amount of trust in decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations made by leader(s); amount of hostility by members towards internal or external critics and/or towards verification efforts.

5. Dogma:
Rigidity of reality concepts taught; amount of doctrinal inflexibility or “fundamentalism;” …

6. Recruiting:
Emphasis put on attracting new members; amount of proselytizing; requirement for all members to bring in new ones.

7. Front Groups:
Number of subsidiary groups using different names from that of main group, especially when connections are hidden.

8. Wealth:
Amount of money and/or property desired or obtained by group; emphasis on members’ donations; economic lifestyle of leader(s) compared to ordinary members.

9. Sexual Manipulation of members by leader(s):
Amount of control exercised over sexuality of members in terms of sexual orientation, behavior, and/or choice of partners.

10. Sexual Favoritism:
Advancement or preferential treatment dependent upon sexual activity with the leader(s).

11. Censorship:
Amount of control over members’ access to outside opinions on group, its doctrines or leader(s).

12. Isolation:
Amount of effort to keep members from communicating with non-members, including family, friends and lovers.

13. Dropout Control:
Intensity of efforts directed at preventing or returning dropouts.

14.Violence:
Amount of approval when used by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s).

15. Paranoia:
Amount of fear concerning real or imagined enemies; exaggeration of perceived power of opponents; prevalence of conspiracy theories.

16. Grimness:
Amount of disapproval concerning jokes about the group, its doctrines or its leader(s).

17. Surrender of Will:
Amount of emphasis on members not having to be responsible for personal decisions; degree of individual disempowerment created by the group, its doctrines or its leader(s).

18. Hypocrisy:
amount of approval for actions which the group officially considers immoral or unethical, when done by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s); willingness to violate the group’s declared principles for political, psychological, social, economic, military, or other gain.

From the Advanced Bonewits Cult Danger Evaluation Frame (or ABCDEF) v2.6 © 1979, 2001 by Isaac Bonewits

As near as I can tell, with the most generous of judgment possible, normative Islam. scores 140!

With an objective test such as this it is possible for law enforcement to merely point to a high score when asked about why a certain religious community is being monitored for actual criminal activity; it worked it Ireland, the key is to enforce it strictly and enforce it strictly across the board!

http://hereticscrusade.com
Ideas instead of Ideologies!

 

Reform in the Muslim World… What Would It Look Like?

muslimahs live in silence and fear

Just daydreaming…

A Muslim boy whose parents fear his increasing radicalization and association with fundamentalist Imams is surprised when his father allows him to join an online Islamist Gaming Site called Teen Muttawa.

The boy logs on, and soon finds himself with two or three friends who show him the duties he must perform as a good Muslim, without questioning, despite his misgivings; Islam is submission, he is told, not interpretation; the Human conscience is not to be trusted in the face of the Word of Allah, as represented by the Shari’ah.

After a time he is allowed to join in a “game” that shows information about Muslims who have become apostate in the eyes of the group. The members vote after each revelation at to what the group should do, pursue, or relent, show mercy or show none, punish or kill. Random high ranking members are assigned to carry out and record the verdicts. The virtual world being embraced by Shari’a excites the boy.

After three days of almost solid “gaming” the boy finds himself viewing a girl in proper niqab walking in a part of town no girl the boy knew would go to.

He votes to pursue… recalling inunctions from his mentors that even his sister can sin and bring dishonor if she strays or is tempted from Islam.  The majority agrees.

The next shot shows the girl from a distance, obviously not escorted, in a secluded place. The boy is so offended by her behavior, he contrasts it to his sisters unfailing modesty and purity. This makes him want to punish the girl for the dishonor she is putting on HER family; who must be already shamed of her; how could such a person not show signs of their rebellion?

He votes to pursue. The majority agrees.

Now he sees the girl talking to a man labeled as haraam to her; then a shot of her embracing him, and another of the man leaving the scene. The boy recalls how his own sister had not even spoken of a boy once their father had declared against him.

The boy votes to arrest. The majority of “Muttawa” agree.

Information is brought in that the girl met her school friend whom she had fallen in love with. Her family had forbidden a marriage and he was moving to another city; she had met him to say goodbye though not even a kiss would she allow herself of him.

The boy votes to execute; the families honor is stained regardless if adultery occurred.  The majority agree.

Later that morning, as he finishes his prayers and prepares to finally sleep he gets an email with the results of the “verdict“. This is an exciting moment, when he can see the reality of his participation in the holy system of Allah’s punishment and reward for those who submit and those who pretend they may not.

He opens the email, loads the attached jpg; it is his sister… whom he realizes a moment too late is standing behind him with a baseball bat, and three similarly armed, and condemned, friends.

(optional Hitchcock style TV apologia can have parents intervening after boy is “scared straight.”)