The Funeral

I went to a funeral at church tonight. I met some of the old faces I abandoned several years back when I parted ways with the Orthodox church which adopted a very clear counter-revolutionary stance. They wedged themselves deeper into that moral abyss when Pope Tawadros was appointed only to unquestioningly support the re-establishment of military rule after the takeover in 2013. I left them all behind. The further I drifted the more content I became. Meanwhile, I still had connections with the actual community on social media. They read what I wrote. I responded to what they wrote. Quite expectedly, we got into huge arguments that resulted in accusations, unfriending and blocking. 

The main moral confrontation was about their support of a dictator as his regime crushed my friends and comrades. The dictator was applauded alongside Jesus who they claimed to celebrate, while those who actually adopted the values Jesus preached about were crucified. ‘Crucify them,’ they said, and with the same breath they celebrated freedom for the corrupt and murderous, like Hesham Talaat Mostafa, Habib El Adly  and numerous others like them.

I had never understood that part of the story in the gospels, that juvenile part just before the crucifixion when Jesus was presented to the masses that welcomed him a year earlier and asked whether he should be pardoned, the people responded 'Crucify him'. Never understood how people could turn against someone who had done nothing but speak truth to power in favor of better morals. Now I've seen it happen and that part of the story seems like the most realistic and authentic part. How simplistic real life can be as well.

This is the church that I got to know, that likened Sisi to Jesus and linked him to the words of prophets about a savior. This is the church that mocked those who used religion to manipulate people’s politics when the Islamists did it, and yet its leader went out and supported the regime despite every atrocity committed in violation of human decency. Its people have sided with false gods and abandoned the morality preached. It’s not that they preached against anything good, it’s that they demoted their beliefs to lip service and mindless acts of worship.

It was the funeral of an old lady whose family I knew. It wasn’t the saddest of funerals because it seems that the old woman had lived a full life till she was very old. I never knew her, just her daughter and her son in law who was also a priest that was close to my heart and I knew her granddaughters and loved them dearly. They were all lovely people who hadn’t quite followed the party line, nor excused atrocities. As soon as I entered and I saw Father Ibrahim, I was filled with love. Some of these people were a community I loved, but I was so angry at the bigger picture, at the rest of everything that I was unable to visit that church much, not even ceremonially. Despite the funeral not being very sad, I was full of sadness. I sat and looked at the faces and wondered what I was so sad about. I realized that I was mourning the death of that church for me and what it meant.

How far had the Coptic church drifted from its promises of holding on to the moral teachings of Jesus. The church had offered resilience in the face of persecution historically. Who knew that you did not need to kill them for them to die. All you had to do is co-opt their leadership and the rest would slowly decay. They would live by their fears instead of their values, they would follow the crowd instead of their conscience.

I mourned the death of the church for what it represented because I loved some of the people. It reminded me that people who have immoral stances can still be lovely warm people who love those close to them and who take care of their community. It reminded me that we can tell ourselves lies in order to think of ourselves as good people. I wasn’t filled with anger when I was there, I was filled with sadness for this lost potential. Even a cynic like me has hope and believes that something better is possible.

It doesn’t matter now how many apologies I get from those who have attacked me, it also doesn’t matter if people haven’t changed their minds and continue to support a brutal murdering dictator. Something has been lost and I have to remember that so many people I know are in jail because many of those lovely fearful people made it possible. There are many beautiful things about Jesus’ teachings that have been distorted by the Coptic community and its church leadership. But as the anger subsides for a while, I’m full of sadness and I’m also filled with love for some of the people who have stood their ground and others who haven’t stood their ground but are paradoxically kind loving people who want to do right by their community.

Anger is much easier, it removes a lot of the problems, because beneath the question of morality, there’s a more complex question of humanity.

The Clanging Cymbal, a Church With a Loveless Creed

First published in DNE on 11 January 2015

“People talk about human rights, but what about God’s rights?” said Pope Tawadros in his sermon on the eve of Coptic Christmas on 6 January. These words, and most others in the same sermon rang hollow, as I recalled the opening lines of chapter thirteen in the book of Corinthians: “If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.”

Aside from the pope’s continued bashing of human rights, what are God’s rights in a faith that preaches love? Is it not love for God and others? The pope and the church have shown very little of that, except to the regime.

It is no longer possible to write off statements by Pope Tawadros as simply uninformed remarks that ought to be corrected. It is clear that every statement released to the public aims to appease authorities rather than offer spiritual guidance.

In his most recent interview with Sky News, the Pope claimed that the Muslim Brotherhood led Christian youth into confrontations with the army and then fled the scene. This was in reference to the Maspero massacre on October 9, 2011 where the military attacked and ran over unarmed Coptic protesters, and state media incited sectarian violence.

This is certainly his most problematic statement, but perhaps a crowning of his previous work cozying up to the government. This statement is problematic for several reasons; the most important of which is that it extends beyond an opinion you may agree or disagree with. It is a statement that asserts a historic fact. A fact that happens to be fictional.

Earlier in an interview with the Spanish Paper El Mundo, the Pope even said that he did not know the perpetrators of Maspero, because he was not Pope at the time. It is worth noting that the manner in which the Maspero protesters were murdered by the Egyptian military has been documented on their tombstone and that the Muslim Brotherhood’s position at the time had been in support of the military.

So why would Pope Tawadros offer this false narrative? An easy answer is that he was misled by his sources, which leaves us with a misinformed Pope unable to determine the truth of history.

The more likely scenario is that the Pope understands full well what he has said and that his distortions of the truth were deliberate, in which case we may only speculate as to why.

Political rather than spiritual gains are to be made. By falsifying what had happened at Maspero, Pope Tawadros undermines Christian activists and antagonises the revolutionaries, particularly those who participated in the march or had witnessed its atrociousness. He made it appear as if they did not stand for anything, and died for nothing. By doing so, he will have appeased a larger base with a price of clear animosity towards the revolution. The wager is that this entire wave of revolutionary rhetoric and fervour will be obliterated completely, and its remnants will dry out. The plan is seemingly to garner enough support from the regime to make legislative changes that deepen the Church’s control over its own matters and its constituency.

Yet even with cold, calculating practicalities, this wager may fail.  It is precisely because it is cold and calculating and devoid of any spirituality, departing from Christian teachings, that it may fail. But aside from that, it may fail because it is a significant political gamble.

In fairness, the Church is caught between a whirlwind of forces. It must balance its positions against Islamists, revolutionaries, military interests, old NDP businessmen, along with their state security connections. Both Islamists and revolutionaries offer the Church nothing practical, and animosity towards both in favor of the regime is a small price to pay. The revolutionaries’ moral high ground may become a problem later on if their rhetoric survives the current crackdown, but for now they seem incapable of making a dent. Other forces have something to offer Christians imminently, but must fight for the Coptic vote in upcoming parliamentary elections.

The battle for control between different security apparatuses rages on. Thus the regime is no longer a cohesive block you can appease.  Parliamentary majority will be determined by the victor in this internal battle, and since the Pope is playing politics, he must choose which side to support, and have the Coptic community back him up.

Because of such complications, politics within the Church are closer to a gamble at the moment. So far all the calculations and compromises have given the church nothing in return; a surprise visit by Al-Sisi to the Coptic cathedral on Christmas Eve, but nothing tangible that fundamentally addresses the state of Copts.

Christians continue to be forcefully evicted, and imprisoned in defamation of religion cases. Churches still require the president’s consent to build or reconstruct. Damaged churches, which the military promised to rebuild, have not been rebuilt. Copts in Libya are being kidnapped and slaughtered with no serious concern or reaction by Church or state.

Rather than speak inclusively to spread love and tolerance, the Pope went on to support the constitutional referendum, discredit human rights, attack atheism, call for segregation of boys and girls, and jump on the state’s bandwagon of witch-hunts.

The Church turned to a new loveless creed that mimics the state’s in praise of rulers rather than the Almighty. Numerous priests have been reciting it. Anba Bola declared Al-Sisi as the Christ he saw when he visited the church on Christmas Eve. Father Makary Younan has also claimed that Al-Sisi was a saviour, prophesied in the book of Isiah. Much earlier, a priest called Boules Ewaida declared his passionate love for Al-Sisi and excused the women for being in love with him. Besides bordering on the delusional, these statements can be regarded by many Copts as blasphemous.

As an effect of political calculations, the Church has wandered its farthest from Christian teachings. Appeasing the regime in every way may cost the Church leverage over politicians, and if it is done at the expense of Christian beliefs, it may cost the Pope control over the Church’s constituency. The Pope will need to stand for something other than the state, because by standing with injustice, he betrays his post and his Church’s denomination. It would be far better for the Pope to stand up for Christian principles than to continue these political manoeuvres.

It is unfair to single out the Pope, because a majority of the Coptic community stands in line with his positions. It is also important to recognise that this is a community that has much to fear, having been discriminated against for so long. It is a community trying to survive, even at the expense of justice. Yet in a way, this survival has cost the community its soul.

How can we give credence to a Church that has lost its spirit? There is nothing spiritual in excusing injustices and propagating false narratives. In the same chapter of Corinthians the closing lines read: “These three remain; hope, faith and love but the greatest of these is love.”

In Pope Tawadros’ Church, this love cannot be found, replaced by self-interest and survival. The words of the church become a clanging cymbal. These are not motivations to blame, yet they have caused the Church to drift from church teachings and Christian faith. This faith preached the value of love above all others, even faith, so much so that it boldly claimed that God is love. I look before me at a community devoid of love, worshiping a brass calf, and full of fear. And if love, praise and glory is what you give God, why does the Church give to Caesar what is God’s?

In Answer to Pope Tawadros, Now Is the TimeTto Talk About Human Rights

Last week Pope Tawadros issued the latest in a long list of fiery statements, when, in a visit to Norway, he remarked: “We can pray in a nation without a church but we can’t pray in a church without a nation.

The statement is an attempt at nationalism to support Egypt. Yet the notion of Christianity was never founded on nations, but on people having the same faith and the same values. On a philosophical level, the church is not the building itself but the congregation, but given Egypt’s history of state endorsed sectarian attacks on churches, the statement tends to undermine the historical struggle of Copts trying to build houses of worship and the attacks on such places.

This is not the first instance of nationalism for the pope. Earlier he had endorsed the constitutional referendum, going so far as to say ‘Yes brings blessings’. Later he also described President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi as a hero of the revolution.

Perhaps the biggest blunder by Pope Tawadros was when he claimed that people had a mistaken understanding of human rights, asking: “When the country is subjected to violence, terrorism and crime, how can we talk about human rights at a time like this?”

The question was clearly rhetorical. It angered some because it implicitly denounced human rights. But anger aside, the real problem is in trying to answer that question as though it was not rhetorical.

What is terrorism? Is it not fear that harm will befall you for no good reason? Harm is when something damaging befalls you or when to bodily harm by another human being, your right to be able to defend yourself against accusations brought against you, your right not to be humiliated and insulted through words or actions, through racism, through sectarianism. Terrorism is when innocent people are targeted, harmed and forced to pay a price they should not have to pay.

If there is a war on “terror” as they say, how can that war be waged using the same exact tools that make up terror? How can you fight the violation of rights through other violations of rights? These violations are supposedly what the fight is against. This fight should not just change the perpetrator. There can be no moral victory when the efforts to combat terrorism legitimise acts of terrorism. There can be no moral victory when those who are more powerful have the right to perform these acts. True terrorism is related to the acts themselves and not to who performs it. By fighting terror with terror, terrorism wins, and those claiming to fight it end up contributing to it.

Are mass death sentences not terror, particularly when a judge finds out by chance through reading the papers that he sentenced a child to death? Is torturing people not terror? And even if we put human rights aside, do Christian values allow for torture and execution, even in a country facing violence?

Human rights help safeguard basic rights, and the state is always accountable whenever these basic rights are violated. I’m not certain what Pope Tawadros meant by a mistaken understanding of human rights. How different does he think human rights values are compared to basic Christian values? The pope is not just a political figure commenting on values; he is a spiritual figure, positioned to represent and safeguard a set of values on behalf of an entire faith. The pope is supposed to be the ‘salt of the earth’, but the commentary of late is tasteless, if not bitter.

In much the same vein, many following the pope have adopted shaky moral stances in favour of nationalism. In a television interview, Anba Bola said that the murder of protesters outside Maspero at the hands of the military in October 2011 must be put behind us. In another incident a priest, Boules Ewaida, flattered Sisi’s good looks.

The shift in church rhetoric from the spiritual to the political and the complete alignment with the regime is worrying and may eventually weaken the church. The pope’s attack on human rights undermines many Coptic struggles such as the right to practice freely, the right to express themselves, equality, citizenship and the right to a fair trial. The fight for such rights has been integral to the Coptic plight in a sectarian state whose abuses have been well documented.

So in answer to Pope Tawadros’ rhetorical question: Human rights are extensions to Christian values and the Christian philosophy of helping the poor and the oppressed. We cannot turn a blind eye to injustices when the state performs them. So, yes, now is the time to talk about human rights, human values and even Christian values because they are the only real weapons in the fight against injustice, the fight for our humanity, our fight for our values and our fight against terror. Now more than ever is the time to talk about rights and values, because now, more than ever, is the time they are most needed.

This article was published in Daily News Egypt on June 29, 2014 

When Reason Fails, Build Another Wall

The subject of walls is well worth commenting on in relation to the events of this past week. A wall has been erected by the military to prevent clashes. Needless to say, walls don’t address problems but defer them and exacerbate them on most occasions. It should be needless to say but it isn’t. Those building walls need to hear it and comprehend it. However, (shocking as it may be) I don’t entirely blame the military for resorting to such an action. Everyone else is doing the same. Everyone has been actively putting up walls.

For commentary to the events themselves, there are several pieces that can be interesting, such as Hani Shukrallah’s opinion piece, Jadaliyya's article or Evan Hill’s analysis, but I’m more interested in walls.

Those protesting have erected the biggest walls. Abu Islam, owner of a TV channel burned a bible while people cheered on and later bragged about it, threatening to piss on it the next time. A protest in Australia has women in veils showing a sign insulting the deceased Egyptian Pope Shenouda III. The protests have taken on a life of their own and extended to numerous Arab countries such as Libya where the American ambassador and his aides were killed,  Lebanon, Sudan and others.

The protests have been building walls that do nothing but exacerbate the situation and push forward the rhetoric that the film aimed at proving. This is not a medieval time where history is re-interpreted, angry Muslims are writing their history now.

But how does one protest hate by hating? How does one protest insulting their religion by insulting another religion? How does one justify violence against those not involved in that singular act? How can some people accept death over a film?

The walls put up by protesters are more dangerous than the military’s but they have a similar effect. Decisions taken by a few and their effects will influence the lives of numerous others. As the select few wreak more havoc, more and more lives are endangered and the walls keep getting higher.

An onset of Islamophobia is to ensue, and why not? There is reason to fear Muslims given the news. A second rate movie caused deaths and destruction.  The majority of Muslims did not react this way, but could this eliminate the fear of the few who would?

The walls being built are becoming insurmountable and I’m not sure what the answer to it is. Tolerance perhaps, but if a group of people cannot tolerate a movie and punish others for what they haven’t done, how can they expected that those who did not partake will not be punished for the wrongdoings of their brethren?

Darkness of the Mind

Ignorance is a lot like darkness. It deprives us of our vision and everything we do under its influence will be an approximation of what we set out to do. We may walk and stumble and break, but it’s only after the light fills the space once more that we actually see what we’ve done, but more importantly what damage we’ve caused.

This darkness is sweeping. It is difficult to illuminate, for this darkness exists in the minds of certain people, the entrances of which have been blocked. It is difficult to access this darkness and give it light, and for that reason, what they do will cause damage.

This ignorance is the reason why sectarian clashes are at their height and why religion will continue to be a tool to manipulate people. The case of ignorance here is simple, ignorance of the other. This darkness hovers over many Muslims. They are unaware of who their Christian counterparts are, or what churches or monasteries are like, or what prayers are like. This applies not only to extremists but to moderate Muslims. The moderates, even when they do not believe in violence, will not understand that churches do not store weapons, that monasteries do not torture people. They do not have the necessary information to make these logical deductions, like monasteries do not have the man power or the time to torture anyone, or that we’ve never heard of a church fire on anyone despite the tumultuous times we’re living in.

The facts are simple and yet so unknown. The minds of the weak can be filled with any sort of object as long as there is darkness. We can fill a room with oak, mahogany, gold and gems as long as the room remains dark. We can fill the room with beasts, with swords, with weapons as long as the room remains dark. The answer is simple, light the room, but the ignorance is not as easily conquered by knowledge as darkness is by light. It may be that certain inhabitants choose to wear blindfolds, so that even when the room is lit, the blind remain blind.

We need to light the rooms and pull down the blindfolds, because there is no hope without our attempts to do so. The only weapon we may count on is the truth. We cannot play the political game of hiding the truth in order to protect, because there’s no one to protect from the truth. We are not in a position today to fight darkness with darkness. We cannot fight ignorance with ignorance.

It’s not enough for you to open your eyes today, you need to open other eyes, because in the words of Roger Waters, ‘each small candle lights a corner of the dark’.

There is too much darkness for us not to at least try and make a difference. Many have missed out on the chance to be part of a revolution which has brought us pride. It’s not too late to contribute, there are many battles to fight. Maybe spend an hour with those in Maspero, maybe talk to extremists and convince them of the truth, maybe talk to other moderates and ask them to know.

There must be something within us all to fight this darkness that has taken hold of many generations. There must be hope that those of us who care will speak out and make a difference. There must be a way to fight against the worst forms of darkness, the darkness of the mind.

Accusations and Other Stories

I posted this video on posting it I explained my reason “I like the first bit showing photos of Cairo University and the evolution of dress there.”

I was surprised then by a backlash of anger from many Muslim friends who accused me of several things: spreading Islamophobia, spreading hidden message through a ‘trend’ of posts and radicalism.

The idea that posting a video can be construed as spreading Islamophobia, or have a hidden message or accusations of radicalism was shocking to me. They are three different accusations about one movie, even though my comment about what I thought was interesting about the movie was crystal clear.

I asked friends what my message was, or what was offensive about the film, but I was not given a clear answer. I was left to ponder over these reactions on my own and draw my own conclusions.

At first I thought it was intellectual terrorism, much like that of objections to any sort of accusations to the army. However I hadn’t made any accusations, so I discounted it and now I’m sure it had to be the film itself.

I have one objection about the film, the choice of music and editing while showing the contradiction between the veil and the rest of the clothing. In a way the point is driven too hard, and I prefer subtlety in films. The interesting thing about the film is that there is no narration, and all other shots taken in the film are from real life. There is something genuine about the reality portrayed in the film which I have captured with my own eyes, without making any judgments on Islamic teachings.

The objection can be to the same scene that I object to, but it can also be to the merely non Islamic point of view of presenting the culture of the Hijab. In films, you’re allowed not to cover all angles of a topic, you’re allowed a director’s eye that captures what you see.

The conclusion is that anything remotely linked to religion is taboo to talk about if religion is not exonerated. This is very worrying in my opinion because it seems that any culture permeated by religion cannot be discussed. It is at the same time worrying that this exact sentiment has been spread by the Ekhwan, saying that criticizing Ekhwan may be equivalent to criticizing Islam.

I must admit there is something even more worrying; discussions about certain topics are based on emotions, without an objective clarification as to why there are objections. The idea that people are emotionally driven is worrying for me. I too am passionate, but I would take the time to explain to my friends my point of view.

Wazza Reggae Hymns

The other night I attended a concert in Rawabet Theater. I really didn't know what I was attending but some friends were going. I had initially thought it was a play but thought to myself, why not? I haven't attended a concert in so long. My friend told me that those guys rocked and people would dance to their music.

The theater was packed, and it appeared that the band had a following. What struck me the most was the type of audience which I haven't been accustomed to. There were so many veiled girls in the audience and the extra shocking surprise of a niqabi woman.

I must admit, the energy was high. People were excited. I closed my eyes and the crowd I imagined based on what I heard is not the crowd I saw when I opened my eyes. Slowly but surely the crowd began to stand up and start moving. As I listened to the songs, they sounded like hymns more common in a Christian arena in the manner that God was addressed at least. These reggae hymns moved the crowd and a long line of veiled girls started dancing to the reggae music. The niqabi woman on the other hand did not stand up but started breast feeding her child.

I must admit it was a slightly strange sight and triggered many thoughts. I wondered if we were in dire need of dancing and were just waiting for an excuse to move our bodies. I also wondered if the same people who provided the fatwa that a hijab is compulsory would approve of this type of dance. Of course it's a meaningless debate because the hijab isn't compulsory except from a social perspective, rather than from religious reasoning. I also wondered about the music ensemble which contained 4 guitars and one drum set. A friend of mine who wasn't overly conservative had pointed out to me that stringed instruments are 'haram' (not allowed) in Islam. I was never able to verify this, but that such an idea exists means that someone out there must be preaching it.

It was a little perplexing when one of the guests of the band started singing ala Boy Zone meets Tamer Hosny. I wondered where the line between reggae hymns and pop music is drawn exactly and what was going on in the minds of these young girls. Probably nothing, as they grew accustomed to. To top off the night, an Egyptian came on and rapped in French and then proceeded to speak to the crowd. He told them that whites and blacks are Africans, and that Africa is about love and then the biggest revelation of the night, that even Asians are Africans.

After the grand revelation, I had to leave to sort out all this new information in my head, about Asians, dancing, hijab and music.

A Vice In Disguise

There is a huge contrast between Egyptians and Saudis that struck me with much irony just as I was about to depart Riyadh airport. It is no secret that the Saudi Arabian notion of virtue is one where free will hardly exists, that is to say, you should be good because your choices are limited. It is a kind of enforced virtue like that of a child who is well behaved only because he is chained and gagged. If we are to call things by their true names, it is just a hypocritical appearance of virtue which is in fact not virtue at all. The repercussions of this veiled vice are numerous, one of many being that the absence of choice leaves one unable to choose when choices appear and the time comes to make a decision. That is why Saudis when given a choice, their desire to experience something of their own choosing leads them only to the things they were never allowed to choose. It is an overwhelming desire for the forbidden fruit, which is not just the vice they were forced to stay away from, but in this case the power to choose. The desire for this kind of freedom to choose is so much more powerful than their conditioning.

It strikes me as almost futile to point out the ills of the Saudi system, for it would take too many words to state what is obvious to the average thinker and yet despite the simplicity can end up meaning to those who cannot see.

There exist within Egypt such poor thinking individuals who are mostly working class people who have lived in the gulf for some time. Escaping an unjust, tyrannical and poor Egypt, they travelled to the gulf in order to make a living. Many in desperation have adapted to the gulf manner of seeing virtue, as something that must be enforced. They have managed to acquire a foolish lesson that even the Saudi residents have had too much good sense not to learn and not to preach. Saudi residents are not too keen on spreading their way of life to other countries. When in foreign countries they embrace the freedom these countries allow to the extent of abuse.

In their blinded conditioning, Egyptians try to bring in the vice of hypocritical virtue camouflaged as piety into their country. In a way they don’t fully realize the full extent of the harm they would cause if they were to succeed. To comply with their desire of enforcing a narrow minded perceived goodness would be to take away any real goodness that Egyptians might possess through the power of their choice. In trying to fix they actually destroy.

To enforce this notion of goodness would be to force our youth to follow all the wrong paths when given a choice, would diminish their feeling responsibility for their actions more than it already is, would take away accountability and would deprive them of any learning opportunity they might come across. Worst of all, it deprives them of the pleasure experienced when one chooses to do good as opposed to being forced to doing it.

This is why I’m against insincere virtue, for it is volatile and can’t stand the test of real hardships. I’m aware of the counter point that might be raised, namely our need to prevent harm resulting from other people’s bad choices. This is absolutely valid, but how much protection do people need?

The problem is that gulf wahabi ideas are dogmatic without having much intent. It is not a matter of stopping harm; it’s a matter of stopping choice. Perhaps that’s why even with the choices Arabs might have they don’t choose well. They buy a phone every few months and stuff their garages with all the cars they can amass. They follow the golden rule, when in doubt, choose everything.

While Saudis try to escape the vices of their system by accepting freedom they find in other places, Egyptians are trying to introduce an evil into their own world by rejecting the real virtue we had in our country. Sadly those wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing are contributing to the deterioration of real virtue and replacing it with the ugliest of all vices, hypocrisy. Freedom, the greatest of human ideas which is one of the few universally accepted causes to fight for, is being replaced by the most debasing of ideas ever known to man, slavery.

The Niqab: A Veiling of Humanity

I came across this article about the niqab in The Daily News Egypt and was very surprised by the content and arguments presented. The article says, “Unfortunately, most debates revealed prejudices and an unwillingness to accept differences.” I found that very naïve because the case against the niqab isn’t as simple as just prejudices, it’s about the welfare of a society. The simple logic of just comparing the niqab to the hijab unfortunately doesn’t quite cut it.

To tell you the truth, I don’t even know why the issue of ‘niqab’ is even being discussed amongst educated thinkers. It makes sense if the educated try to argue with the ignorant in order to make them see the errors in their logic. It makes sense if the poor and the ignorant debate it amongst themselves all year long, after all, it is these kind of people who end up embracing such an idea.

There are only a handful of reasons why an educated person could argue for the niqab in the modern day, and the reasons are rather subjective. The main arguments are driven either by ignorance or fear. There are other sub reasons but they all relate to either one or another. One such example is the desire to appear neutral or open minded to all ideas by hiding behind a fake pretentious façade of liberalism or human rights advocacy. This relates to ignorance because all the principles of liberalism can only be misapplied if they were to be used as an argument for the niqab. That’s to say that a person chooses to be ignorant of meaning of the principles when applying them to the niqab.

Ignorance is the easy route out in a view supporting the niqab. Unlike its counterpart, the hijab, there doesn’t exist the same distant suspicion that the niqab has roots in the original Islam, nor is it suspected to have been expected of all Muslim women. Hence, anyone arguing for the niqab from a religious perspective has no ground to stand upon. Usually those who know about the niqab know it from extreme preachers on television or are handed it down from others in poor places. It’s easier for someone to listen than to read, and those lazy to read will probably be too lazy to think. We’re faced with the impossible situation of trying to change someone’s thoughts, and the irony is that it hasn’t entered their heads through the natural means of thinking.

Most educated arguments sprout from a human rights perspective. Those who make this argument have missed the important points completely. Needless to say the argument is that it’s people’s right to do as they please, one’s dress style relates to their personal freedom and their choice can be considered freedom of expression. This argument while at first glance seems liberal and seems to make sense, it fails every kind of objective test. The first thing to point out about a right is equality. To claim something is a human right means to give it to everyone. If women have the absolute right to dress as they please, then it should follow that just as a woman should be allowed to cover up all her skin, so too should a woman be allowed to bare all her skin. As one extreme shows, both are unacceptable. The sophists may argue that showing all the body skin is indecent, but I would also say that covering up your identity is unfair, indecent and rude where manners are concerned. It’s not only rude but pretty terrifying too. The idea of big brother watching you from under the niqab is a horrifying prospect. So just as no clothing violates people’s sense of decency, the niqab threatens people’s sense of security.

Don’t get me wrong, people can do whatever they want in the privacy of their properties, cars, houses, spas. They can wear the niqab or dress up as super heroes for all I care, but that doesn’t include public places where others can’t help but be there.

While on the subject of equality of rights, would society allow men to go around in ski masks with their identity concealed? Would we allow our doctors, our butchers, or our waiters and cooks? Do we protect the right of men to hide behind the niqab thus concealing their identity and allowed in places they were never meant to be? We actually seem to be doing just that, but it doesn’t make it right. In terms of equality the argument for the niqab fails and serves only to violate people’s rights by giving a group of people unexplained and unjustified privileges. It not only fails to give equal rights to women on the opposite side, but it also fails across genders.

Let’s say we can ignore all this, let’s think of who and what we’re fighting for, if it is even conceivable that this is a human right. We’re fighting for a group of people who want only their way. If we guarantee them this as a right, we forfeit others’ rights. What I mean to say is that those who choose the niqab probably don’t believe in the rights we’re using as an argument and while some might say that this is not relevant in theory, I say that in practice it is. It doesn’t appear likely that people for whom we will ensure the right to wear a niqab would start fighting for other people’s rights of freedom even if they got what they want in the name of human rights. It would be like democratically electing a leader who doesn’t believe in democracy and would abolish it whence in power. It’s like an inciter of hate demanding freedom of speech not recognizing the limitations of his right.

The hijab managed to sustain itself because it’s a dress code that doesn’t hide the facial features that identify a human being. It can’t be used to commit a crime, can’t be used to disguise men as women, can pass as an expression of faith, and if men wear it, it’ll be weird but acceptable.

The niqab needless to say is full of problems absent from the hijab. So why then don’t the more knowledgeable, non ignorant people speak up and state the obvious as vehemently as I have just stated it? The answer is fear. It’s not easy describing the exact quality of fear that inhibits speaking up about this matter, but I can attempt to flit around it. The fear might be of being criticized for appearing less zealous over Islam than others around, for the niqab has come to symbolize piety. There is among many a trend to call people infidels for no particularly good reason as excuse to get their way, much like people were called enemies of the revolution when their views were in conflict with the leaders and the person along with his views was disposed of by mere accusations. In our descent into the abyss of extremism it has become harder to tell the truth without fear. It may be fear of a damaged reputation or sometimes fear of acquiring a damaged body part. And in our world of extreme political correctness and human rights advocacy it’s becoming harder and harder to be logical for fear of appearing less humane and more of a bigot.

There’s always a fear of being accused or misunderstood and in our effort to survive we let extremism drag us further down the bottom of an endless ocean. There’s a fear of going against the flow needlessly and there’s a fear of losing popularity if you are in the position to have your voice heard.

It’s hard to pinpoint what scares each person, but there’s a cloud of fear hovering over our heads. Even the all mighty government is afraid of touching the subject for the repercussions and retaliation against any action it might take and that’s why it’s approaching it indirectly by allowing the educated to voice out their concerns. The hijab managed to become quite near our holocaust, untouchable despite previous debates around the subject. You might think that the niqab is far from sharing this fate but one need only take a look at Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia to observe how instilled a meaningless tradition can become.

So is it possible to accept the niqab under the umbrella of human rights and freedom? I’d be a fool to pretend that we could if we are to be honest with ourselves. Under the umbrella of extremism it is possible whether it be religious or pretentious human rights. However, it’s impossible to integrate with an alien watching from behind a screen interpreting my every expression and keeping his to himself. The whole quality of human interaction is compromised much less human rights. So the question becomes are we ready for humans to give up on their humanity?

The Weight of the World

Too many hopes are riding on one man's shoulders and to be certain the weight of these hopes will crush him or at least crush those who have chosen to put their hopes there. But perhaps he asked for it when he campaigned for change, he asked people to rest their hopes on him, to bet on him, to vote for change. He didn't really comprehend what he was asking, or perhaps he comprehended but thought he could do it, or perhaps he was too successful in getting what he asked for. But the weight of this world's burdens will crush him. No man can live up to these expectations, there's too much that has gone wrong with the world for one man to change it all even if that man occupies the most powerful position in the world. The quality of hope has changed, it has become a hope that something decent starts changing in the world, but the world is not a place for decent things to happen. There's too much evil, there's too much hate and it's easier to destroy than to build. 

With the kind of expectations that people have, he has no choice but to disappoint, not because he had the world fooled and that his hidden agenda was sinister, but because he is a good man and it takes more than being that to eradicate evil. Do I make it sound too simplistic like a superhero comic? Well, when it comes down to it, after all the shades of gray are attributed to their respective black and whites, it's approximated to this kind of simplicity.

A video I watched addressed to Obama triggered these thoughts. The letter to Obama relayed through video by an Israeli human rights activist was roughly save us Obama from the evil we inflict on palestinians and save us from our aching conscience. The video recalled Obama's promises to save the world, and they were calling him in to live up to these promises;  save us from our acts, save us from our sins. She asked him to stop how complacent the IDF soldiers felt while killing young children, to stop the inhumane treatment of Palestinians, to end the terror inflicted on palestinians by Israel. The woman in her letter said that she prayed for Obama to win even though she didn't believe in God. In a way, with her letter she was praying to Obama. How many of us want to send out a letter or video to someone out there to change the way we live? I would suppose that most people on the globe would want to send out a letter entitled Dear Obama, or Dear Mubarak, or Dear Qadafi even. The reason we don't send out to the latter two is because we're certain they won't listen, or perhaps we don't send out to others because we know they won't be able to do anything even if they wanted to.

The world has replaced the prayer to an all powerful God, to human beings who can hardly live up to their promises, who can only try to change the world and most likely will fail. The world says it doesn't need God anymore, but strip the world of the facade they believe in called a system and a government and you will see how much they need God. The ongoing prayers to other humans who control their fate is strong evidence that there is a need for God even in the presence of a government and rules. Who do you turn to when the law has failed you? When your leaders have failed you? When humans have failed you? When the world has failed you?

That woman in the video has chosen to turn to Obama, a man who has promised with words what we all want to see happen. He has promised that the most powerful man will be all that we wish him to be. But even if he did live up to his word, can he answer all prayers?

I'm not saying that God answers all our prayers, or that God must exist just because man has failed. I know many people who at some point in their life felt no need for God. I'm just saying that the need for God is real in a world gone wrong, when all the systems that man has made could not protect him. The need to thank someone, the need to call out for someone, the need to find someone to help you through the hard times, because I imagine it would be very lonely when all men as well as spirits have forsaken you. I see many lonely people, trying to find someone to call out for. They call out on people that will probably never be able to help, like another Obama who is probably too busy failing others he has already promised to make yet another promise. 

Hassan & Morkos

Very heavy on the symbols, this much is true… it's what makes this movie drift so far from reality, yet in effect reflecting it. The movie had one of two choices, to elegantly move over items of our daily lives pointing to them in a suave, elegant manner, or bring down the hammer over the points we see every day and blow them up to reflect what's hidden in our society. It chose the latter, probably because of how difficult it is to do the former. In effect, the movie is a not at all elegant, insisting on delivering messages through pounding dramatic effect and repetition, mostly to the masses who prefer their movie messages delivered in this manner.

Abstractly though, the scenes when stripped of their need to reflect reality drive home very directly a message that has tried to be sincere. Its conclusion is delivered through the movie's final scene. It says yes, we do not know each other, yes there are problems, yes there is even hatred and yes we are not one and the same. We're different and we're in chaos and that will not be denied. The lines that separate us have been drawn but worse, the lines prevent us from knowing one another any further. We become our clan, and we're just a bundle of blind resentment.

We're in this battle we've found ourselves in with no hope of a mass salvation. Our masses are doomed and are in chaos due to prejudices and bad history. There is only room for personal and individual salvation. Like the six entwined together in what looks like an average road from hell in the movie's final scene, we cannot fight to change all that's around us, but we need to hang on to each other to get through it. Our salvation is through personal knowledge and through love of one another.

We are not one, but we can intertwine and we can go through the roads of hell together. Amidst this impersonal chaos we can still have each other. There's some elements of human love that transcend religion, for religion should only lead us to those elements. We can survive the violence around us knowing what know about each other.

This was expressed in the final scene that was built up by the movie. It was heavy on allegory and physically distant from reality in a seemingly surreal fantastical kind of way. (Although the choice of Alexandria where such violence took place can defend the aspect of reality) In the remainder of the movie, Hassan we Morkos reflects a hidden prejudice that has become stealthily inherent in our community. They are prejudices based on superficial labels and nothing can be as superficial as the labels presented in the movie. We have a non practicing Christian and beardless and ignorant Sheikh.

These are people under a thin cover. The cover is simply a label, a tag and unfortunately this has reflected that no one cares about anything except that tag. Some of us are labeled one way or another through our names and that serves as all the basis needed for prejudices and discrimination. Some of us with neutral names can really see the discrimination as soon as our labels are discovered. Even Hassan and Morkos, or rather their underlying characters, who epitomize religion, end up judging one another superficially. They warm up to each other based on religion and are discriminated against based on how they appear.

Hassan we Morkos is a funny comedy that has not fully grown into its potential black. Not all points were discussed and there were references to hidden opinions from both sides that rang so true that you couldn't help but laugh. The absurdity of accusations of one party to another was comical to see on screen and yet behind the comedy there was so much truth.

The whole movie of course is based on an improbable plan set forth by the government and while the actual plan of the government was fictitious, the consequences were not. The government has helped to orchestrate the atmosphere for this kind of tension in reality, and perhaps it has in fact hidden who we are from each other. At the end of the day we're left with the ugly situation expressed in the usual cheesy crowd chants but reflecting a reality that's impossible to ignore nonetheless.

The scenes that took place in the south of Egypt were comical to say the least, not reflecting at all the prejudices that exist down there. To talk about these dogmatic prejudices and discriminations would leave no room for comedy as people’s lives are destroyed because of their religion. The movie had no choice but to skip these bitter stories. Over here in the big city, we Cairenes are quick to say, there’s nothing of that sort, there’s no prejudice and there’s no hatred. In Cairo, we’re distant from all that happens elsewhere.

Whether this movie can move any prejudice an inch is not something for me to say or that can even be foretold, although, like everything else, it will just pass as entertainment. For we love our stars on the silver screen, Omar and Adel, but we don't usually extend that love to our loud or obnoxious neighbors. That is why things may fade out as does the music with the ending credits. In real life there's no Yasser Abdel Rahman's inspirational score to move our hearts. There is no camera on us to judge us and there are no lovable stars to love. We're left with one another and that may not be enough.


We need the familiar, our usual stars to love, our usual music and lighting and most of all our same kind. The only way out is through personal knowledge as the movie suggests and the only way towards this is by allowing ourselves to trust. We need to open the door we've locked ourselves in and allow love to salvage us from the utter chaos we've found ourselves in.

There's no camera to watch us but we forget that a label was never a window to the soul. I suppose it's only fair to say that there are so many who have actually moved past all these prejudices that were forced throughout our present day culture. There are some who have fought the dogma of tribalism with the logic of love. There are some whose human bonds are even stronger than that of blood, and transcend the labels that lead us to those sought after pure human qualities. So let us walk in their footsteps and put aside our slogans and hypocrisy and see each other as humans with a choice. As long as we have no choice about our prejudices, we'll always be enslaved.

The Worst Argument Ever Made

Perhaps the worst argument that any human has ever said, adopted or suspected of being correct is :

It doesn't matter what you believe in as long as you are sincere.

I don't even know how this most nonsensical argument ever came to cross my path, it should have been bashed right there and then by the first person to ever say it, or the first person to have ever heard it at most. It displays a very big short circuit to thinking surrounded with an air of fakery that people refer to as tolerance.

It's actually a big waste of time writing about it or even reading about it but unfortunately the first person who heard it was a bigger fool than the first person who said it because it appears he must have repeated it, and somehow those words made their way to me. The one and only context that people will use this sentence is religion, or to be more abstract anything they don't want to think about or want to link with reality. It fails miserably and it contradicts itself. It's one small sentence and yet has the amazing power of contradicting itself.

I would agree about the first part, sometimes it doesn't matter what you believe. I can accept that because what you believe can on occassion not matter at all. The trouble is when adding the 'as long as you are sincere' part. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't what you sincerely believe totally determine what your actions are going to be? Isn't all the drive for our actions a result of what we believe? How about our decisions, aren't they based on what we sincerely believe?

If anything it matters what you believe in as long as you're sincere. All answers in a test are a result of what you believe to be true and sometimes sincerity isn't even an issue. The only things that don't really matter are things you aren't sincere about, these are the things whose resultant actions are not fixed in stone and can be rather random. If anything and not to be too Wildeian I will have to rephrase that erroneous argument:

It doesn't matter what you believe as long as you're insincere.

On Atheism

A friend of mine asked me why I joined a certain group comprised of atheists, agnostics and non religious people. There was a quote on that group about how atheists should not be defined as anything, that there should be no word to reflect their belief. So my friend asked me for an answer, and I said that I disagreed because atheists have a positive belief rather than a passive or neutral one. Agnostics can claim this, but not atheists.

From Wikipedia:

Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of any deities.It is contrasted with theism, the belief in a God or gods. Atheism is commonly defined as the positive belief that deities do not exist, or as the deliberate rejection of theism. However, others—including most atheistic philosophers and groups—define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities (cf. nontheism), thereby designating many agnostics, and people who have never heard of gods, such as newborn children, as atheists as well.


I'm using the common definition as positive belief that deities do not exist, deliberate rejection. This is not like saying I don't know, or I don't have a point of view regarding the matter, it says I know for sure that deities do not exist. The modern view which encompasses more numbers is to say those who are not against us are with us, this refers to agnostics who do not know and others who claim they’ll never know. And so, newborn children are atheists by that rationale, while in fact they're agnostic.

Since my contention is that newborns are agnostic, that also extends to treating those children who are born with religious backgrounds as agnostic as well, it is only when they decide to answer the question of whether God exists or not that they may be one or the other.


As for the quote:

"Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious. In fact, "atheist" is a term that should not ever exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non astrologer" or a "non-alchemist". We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."

Let me tell you my opinion about the statement, there's one factual flaw that makes this statement fail, the word 'unjustified'. The truth is it's very justified, if not from an evidential point of view such as miracles and a variety of other experiences that point to the presence of God, then alone by the social necessity of the presence of a god. According to most philosophers who don't believe in God, man needs God and man needs to create God (if he doesn't exist), so that in itself justifies it. So in light of a generally accepted claim, there is a need to say your stance or whether you have none. It’s like saying I don’t believe in galaxies and expecting this to be the norm.

Also, there are people who say Elvis is dead and people who say Elvis is alive, and people who just don’t know. Now here's the problem. Imagine I say a Michael exists. Now I know this Michael, and I've seen his emails, but others haven't. If they say that they don't know if Michael exists then they have no opinion on the matter, which is fine, but if they say for certain that he doesn't, then there’s a problem cause I've experienced him. Why preach to the world that Michael doesn't exist and that it's absurd that someone with the name Michael should exist? I mean I understand if he doesn't exist to them because they haven't experienced him or sought him out, but why should that be the normal if I can see traces of his existence?

The quote goes on to say:

"An atheist is simply a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (87 percent of the population) claiming to "never doubt the existence of God" should be obliged to present evidence for his existence-and, indeed, for his BENEVOLENCE, given the relentless destruction of innocent human beings we witness in the world each day."

So basically, what he's trying to say is that HE demands evidence, rather than people asking him for evidence.. now the trouble with that statement is that he will never accept evidence that's personal to someone else, so his demand that others provide it is totally bonkers for lack of a better word. People don't demand that atheists prove that God doesn't exist, they only present them with evidence that is usually refuted.

In the end, doubt is a part of faith, not the opposite, because it takes overcoming doubt to have faith really.

I hope that explains my view of atheists, who are at the other end of the spectrum that contains religious believers, and the real neutral ground is agnostic, once you incorporate agnostics into atheists, it becomes mixed up and ambiguous.

Religophobia

Here’s the simple truth of the matter, people are afraid of their own religion. People have been terrorized by their own religion and have long forgotten that they have power over their religion. Instead of people having power over what religion they choose, religion has power over people. People do not believe in religion based on what they believe is true, they tailor their truths to match what their religion believes is true. Religion becomes no longer a faith but a given. It is no longer a choice to a way of life, but a way of life in itself. It is no longer a reflection of a chosen faith; it is a snapshot of a dogma that might have once taken the form of faith.

So what good does it benefit someone born in a religion not to have faith? My question is too absurd. Religion instills too much fear in people to even claim that they do not have faith. Certainly to the minds living in denial those things do not exist but to the hearts seeking the truth they do.

Religion teaches man never to be a slave to anything or anyone or any sin and yet man is slave to religion. He is guided by religion into a prison of thought. Questioning is subdued and without questions there can be no answers and without answers there can be no choice. So the same element that preaches free will and choice has been manipulated to confiscate freedom from its followers.

But how can that be? How can religion cause all this? Religion alone cannot but with religion’s help, man can.

At first manipulation was simple, to use any belief no matter what it was to benefit a selfish cause, but now man does not need to enslave and recruit people, people are already born recruited and enslaved. A bit of fine tuning and the machine is ready to go.

Question, why are people sensitive about their religion although it’s their choice?

Answer, it never really was.

People are locked on to religion and are taught to be sensitive about it. After all, how can people be controlled if they have nothing in common? A thousand dogs with a thousand leashes are like a thousand dogs without any leashes. Religion is the leash that makes people belong together but in effect becomes the one thread to controls them.

The truth is an entirely different subject because once reached, the dog becomes a man. Seeking a religion is one thing and being enslaved to one is another.

Religion is like an old road that people took to lead them to Rome, but as time passed the road became obscured and hidden and new renderings of that road appeared. People still followed the road ever so diligently, ever so loyally even though that road never went to Rome anymore. People got fixated on taking that road that they totally forgot that its intention was to lead them to Rome. The road met new roads that spoofed the people into thinking it was the old road. The roads merged and Rome disappeared, even from the hearts of travelers.

Is it the feeling of being lost that gets people to want to destroy others who have taken a different road?

Religion is the opium of the people, well I’m sorry Marx, I have to append something to that. Religion is the coffee of the people because even though it keeps some of their thoughts sedated, it keeps them up, alert and motivated, without it they will just be asleep thinking of the troubles they have with their identity.

The Wrong Approach

The problem with people nowadays in relation to God and religion is the way they work it ‎out; more often than not people start the wrong way around. People have the habit of first ‎looking around them at things they comprehend and see and then trying to work out what ‎they cannot see. Let me explain, people always look at the world around them and from it ‎try to deduce the spiritual world beyond, so they look at the earth and try to deduce if ‎heaven exists. This method usually does not provide good results, because whatever the ‎deductions seem to be, they’re always incomplete. Starting out with what you see can lead ‎you anywhere. The better approach would be to assume that there is God and see what the ‎results will be, or assume there is no God and deduce how things should be, then perhaps ‎match it with what you have and from it determine what you’ve assumed wrong.‎

Of course some people claim they have made the assumptions I stated above, but have ‎failed to work in that direction. Let’s take for example how people approach religion, first ‎they take the words of any religious book as the absolute truth, and from it they work what ‎God is like. This is a very dangerous approach because when assuming there is God, there ‎can be no absolute guarantee that the book they’re reading is His word, and so the word of ‎God gives a wrong impression about God to those assuming he does exist, and totally ‎disproves the existence of God (in some cases) to those assuming he doesn’t exist.‎

‎(A very good example of people saying unreasonable things can be found here)‎

All this might be getting boring and a bit complicated.. I think it’s a bit too dense but here’s ‎what I mean, it would be much simpler to assume that God doesn’t exist and then reason as ‎to how the world will be like. It would be much simpler to assume that God does exist and ‎reason what the world would be like in his existence and what His words will be like. If we ‎try to imagine what God would do if he did exist it will save us a lot of trouble, and perhaps ‎then we can reason His words.‎

A debate struck up between me and a friend of mine in which I asked him about something. ‎So the first thing he answered me was “God said so”. Now I don’t know about you, but this ‎word infuriates me a bit, because at a time when people are claiming God said so many ‎things, you can’t base this as a source of your argument. I mean with so many books and so ‎many theories, let’s use that brain God gave us, he must have given it to us for a reason. ‎Perhaps not to understand everything but just enough to understand whether what we’re being ‎told can be true. So I told my friend, don’t explain to me by telling me God said so, explain ‎to me why God said so or would say so, let us reason why God would say this and let us ‎reach through the little logic we have why God told us this. So we sat down and examined ‎the issue from a social point of view, psychological point of view, scientific point of view ‎and we reasoned that God has a reason for saying this and that.‎

You see that’s the problem I’m talking about, people keep telling you because God said so.. ‎and while I know God must have said some things, I know that there are some means of ‎understanding part of God’s wisdom. It’s all about working the right way, sometimes ‎working backwards can give you an illogical god or even a contradicting god. ‎

I’m not going to get to detailed examples of what I mean but let me try to show something. ‎Let’s assume there was God, and there was a devil. Now what would God do to help ‎humans and what would the devil do to counter that plan assuming as well that we had free ‎will. I suppose that God would probably give people instructions on how to live and what ‎would be good for them, but the devil’s technique would be to cast doubt on those words, ‎and the best way for people to get lost is to be confused and not know what’s right from ‎what’s wrong. It’s like psychological warfare I suppose, each country releasing a set of press ‎releases and you can choose which to believe. Of course there are signs that tell you which is ‎true and which is not. ‎

I remember the war in Iraq, there were many statements made by the States regarding the ‎battles and there were statements made by Information minister Saeed Al Sahaaf of Iraq ‎regarding the same war. They were both conflicting and yet one was true and one was not so ‎true. I guess at some point people choose which they want to believe, what they wish to be ‎true, or what they were raised to believe.‎

So the point is simple, it’s all about the approach. Whenever people reason as to what God ‎might say, someone comes in and just says: No you infidels, God said so and so and so and ‎so as if it were definitive. ‎

To top this all off, I must add these excellent links for both believers and non believers. It’s ‎just a few things to show that theology is not that trivial.‎

If you think believers are naive click here.‎
If you think non believers are idiots click here.‎

Many people approach God and religion in what I view as a wrong way, but hey.. it’s my ‎blog and the only opinion that really matters is my own.‎