TL;DR

The copypasta might have had more impact if you hadn't mentioned Hitler.

Dasvidania dudarina.

Pericles,

Rather than accusing technology of having “allowed destruction”, a far broader perspective will view man as the root cause. Oliver has pointed out that science is amoral - so too is technology. The USE to which it (science or technology) is put creates the ‘evil’ - our ‘human condition’, if you like, is the directing ‘force’.

The Secular Humanism you infer has its limitations, with its codes of behavior and morality created through reason alone. This philosophy generates a humanity which is the measure of all things. Karl Marx’s definition on humanism is interesting, “…This communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully-developed humanism equals naturalism...” Humanism is understandable in reacting to ecclesiastical despotism, prejudice and superstition. However, as a rationale allied to the “scientific method”, individuals ultimately have no place in the scope of this mechanistic interpretation.

Religion is merely human expression. Intolerance breeds injustice – borne equally from both the religious and non-religious. Injustice invariably leads to rebellion and retaliation, generally, this leads to escalation where reconciliation becomes impossible - i.e. war.

Glorfindel,

Thanks for your comments. I haven’t read Yevgeny Zamyatin's "We" but have read George Orwell’s well known 1984 (apparently strongly influenced by “We”). We are a far cry from Orwell's fictional totalitarian state of Oceania but the general proclivity of the modern state, with its almost unlimited powers of surveillance, threat to the individual and penchant for constant propaganda, were foreseen more accurately by George Orwell than almost anyone else. Perhaps our own ‘state’ offers sufficient threat here before we need worry about Islam. I’m sure, as George also suggests, decent Muslims would share our fears.

Hi Oliver,

Your allusion to abstraction hints on understanding the elusive – intuition is one such example, theology another - and sometimes best left alone. Voltaire said that the difficulty of ‘throwing a little light into so much obscurity often discouraged him’. Nevertheless, this theologian persisted, and finally “arrived at knowledge unknown to most of his confreres” The ‘queen of the sciences’ may indeed be a temptress who makes fools of those who fall for her.

You can wriggle, Glorfindel, but it was you yourself who apply the tarred brush to yourself, not I.

>>I talked about the generally disgraceful British National Party not in approval but in sorrow that virtually *only* they had belled the cat of Islamization in the UK.<<

Your position remains the same.

You now claim to feel sorrow, that mainstream political parties, presumably including the one you support, does not include anti-Islamic policies in their platform, as do the "generally disgraceful" British National Party.

This is in no way different to my previous point, that "you believe that our political parties should adopt policies closer to those of the British National Party."

If there is a difference between feeling sorrow that these policies are not present, and wishing that they were, it is far too subtle for me.

For the sake of clarity, and to avoid giving you further offence,it might be handy if you were to clarify which of the BNP policies you approve of, and which you don't.

And this has nothing at all to do with "universal human rights", but more along the lines of "loving thy neighbour".

A shaggy dog tale.

Big Dog: (spoiling for a fight, spies Kelpie through the paling fence)
Woff! Woff!
>>One anal-retentive, selfish, dog-in-the-manger, fearful, comfort-loving miser<<

( Kelpie sniffing around Huntaway , who is followed by a string of puppies, and telling her that in the interests of sustainable population she should limit production to two puppies per litter , doesn’t respond to Big Dog)

(Big Dog tries again)
Woff !Woff!
>>Admit it, Banjo. You just don't like dem furriners, do you?<<

( Kelpie continues fraternising with Huntaway and is now dreaming of doing a bit of littering with her, again, ignores Big Dog)

Big Dog: (grits his teeth and wanders off to spray someone else, spots Relda howling to the pack across the way )
Woff! Woff !
>>That's rather a narrow view relda, if you don't mind my saying<<

Russian Wolf Hound: (of the very best pedigree, who just happened to be passing)
>>Great posting relda<<

Big Dog: (infuriated at RWHs having had the temerity to contradict him, & perhaps, a little envious of his fine pedigree)
>>There's plenty of scope there for fearmongering and rabble-rousing, Glorfindel. Go for it <<

(Enter Mad Dog, a mutt masquerading as a pure bred Pomeranian)

Mad Dog: (excited by all the barking coming from Big Dog, joins in)
Yap! Yap! Yap!
>> Now Pericles, you really must stop being so despicably rational and tolerant<<

( then he takes up his usual position, behind the hind legs of Big Dog,
only his head shows as he continues to growl & bare his teeth at RWH)

Conclusion: if you’ve got pedigree, be wary of mixing it with mutts.

Why is it that so many of OLO's idiots are obsessed by dogs?

Thanks for bringing up "1984", Relda; it has been on my mind.
I don't think the 3 protagonists of Orwell would be governments, or religions. Current evidence suggests they could well be corporations.
'Kulu' was kind enough to post an interesting piece on my site, about "Why The Peaceful Majority Is Irrelevant, by Paul E. Marek."
http://thecomensality.com/avasay/?p=109
This was first posted on Arutz Sheva, -Israel National News.com. It basically an expansion of Burke's sentiment that "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
I think the sentiments expressed on this thread show the variations in approbation. Even Glorfindal makes a distinction between Islam and Islam 'shopfront'.
It seems the problem we need to address, is fanaticism. Why do some people of all pretty much all religious -and sometimes even non-religious- persuasion, become fanatics?
I have to say, America's interventionist policies must share some degree of culpability.