This week in Islam

[dialamah]

On 6/20/2019 at 9:04 AM, Marocc said:

Drawing the line is easier than not drawing the line IF one studies Islam. The Quran and the Hadith and the Sunnah and history need to be studied carefully. If you haven't studied them it's understandable you don't see the line, but it isn't understandable you want to decide what befits the law and what doesn't. 

If a government or a cleric supports or proposes a law that, for instance, victimizes women or children or gay people or non-believers, and justifies that law as "Islamic" based on something in the Quran, the Hadith or the Sunnah, then I suppose I will have to agree with Islam's detractors that Islam as a religion is barbaric, backward and ignorant.  Now, personally, I don't want to do that simply because I know too many Muslims who are the opposite of barbaric, backward and ignorant.   The only way I can support my Muslim family and friends is to 'decide what befits the law and what doesn't.'   

Quote

The Muslim world is full of Muslims who oppose the sharia law as prescribed by their governments. But this by most part is not because they want to do away with Sharia and use your laws instead. No.

I have some limited understanding of the role of Sharia in Islam so I would not expect Muslims to do away with Sharia, and use our laws instead.

Quote

They just want to do away with things they believe do not belong to Islam.

This is  exactly what I am getting at. 

Quote

And in those countries they have other laws in use but just Sharia. So before you criticise a specific country's law and call it Sharia you have to check what else it consists of. 

I am more aware than most Westerners of the differences in how Sharia law is implemented in Islamic countries.  I am aware that several countries have dual systems, where Sharia is only applied in family matters and criminal matters are not.  Or that in most countries (not all), Sharia or portions of Sharia only apply to Muslims while people of other beliefs are under a different system.  

Quote

Governments and clerics do not interpret "Islam". There is nothing to interpret. Muslims follow the Quran and the prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam).

That's simply not true.  For instance - stoning for adultery.  This is not supported in the Quran, yet it is a legal punishment in several Islamic countries, who use the Hadith to legitimize it.  How is that not interpreting Islam?

Quote

There are not many ways to interpret the Quran, though many say so. The interpretation is either right or wrong. It is an individual Muslim's duty to find the information they need or to try their best. So if a Muslim is wrongly guided because of a cleric, he is responsible for it himself as there are many highly respected Islamic scholars in the world. The main idea is that if a teaching - no matter who it comes from - is controversial to the Qur'an or the Prophet's (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) teachings, which are available for all to read, it is to be rejected. 

If a person resides in a country that prescribes "death to apostates", a punishment based on Hadith rather than the Quran, how exactly is he supposed to "reject" that?  He cannot, because his government and the religious authorities impose that on him.   It is simply not possible to excuse or ignore the role of Islamic governments and clerics in 'interpreting' Islam for the people under their authority.

Quote

In Islam religion cannot be forced on anyone. The Muslims who believe know that what they follow is the only right religion and know that there can be no fault in it. But it is not up to them to make people believe so.

If Islam cannot be forced on anyone, why do so many Islamic countries make adherence to Islam a requirement for freedom from legal consequences and/or persecution?   Why do so few Muslims really understand their religion, if its up to them to determine the 'truth' of Islam?  Why do so few Muslim leaders actually lead according to the Quran, but instead use Hadiths and other sources to impose behaviors on Muslims under their control?

Quote

If all the people in the world knew what Islam is, everyone would be Muslim. But that is not the way it is, nor is it the way it will ever be - as Allah tells us this in the Quran. The Muslims will always be persecuted.

As long as so many of Islam's leaders rely on interpretations of the Quran through Hadiths, then people in the world will never know what Islam is.  And yeah, Muslims will always be persecuted if they continue to fail to take responsibility for what their leaders practice and teach.

[Argus]

20 hours ago, Marocc said:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali became an apostate long ago and she knows nothing about Islam.

That she is no longer a Muslim has no relevance to what she does or does not know about Islam unless you think Islam has changed a lot in the last dozen years. And my understanding is it has not changed in the last many centuries.

[Argus]

20 hours ago, dialamah said:

My sister, in our private conversations, talks about issues in Egypt and in Islam, and with Muslims.  But she would never come here and talk about them, because people like you and DoP and Argus will use it as fodder to demonize Muslims.

And yet people do talk about it. And it really doesn't matter if many Muslims in Egypt are kind people who bear no particular animosity for Christians or gays. They're not in charge. And they do little or nothing against the others who DO bear such animosity. If you live in a culture in which half the people don't much care that you're a Christian while the others despise you you're going to have a very dangerous life.

MINYA, Egypt—Egypt’s Coptic Christian minority is facing a surge in sectarian attacks, with increased instances of violence and threats from Muslim neighbors forcing churches to close and casting a pall over Orthodox Easter on Sunday.

In one recent incident that echoed many others, residents of central Egypt’s Sohag province were seen in a video recorded earlier this month and reviewed by The Wall Street Journal beating their male Coptic Christian neighbors with sticks as women screamed, leading to the shutdown of a local church, according to Coptic groups and a human- rights organization that documented the incident.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/anti-christian-violence-surges-in-egypt-prompting-an-exodus-11556290800

Silence from Egyptian media after a police officer killed two Coptic Christians. An Egyptian police officer shot and killed two Coptic Christian men – a father and son – in the province of Minya on December 12. But the murder was barely covered by the Egyptian media. Our Observer thinks that this silence is a result of an increasingly restrictive environment for the press and the media’s fear of countering the official narrative.

https://observers.france24.com/en/20190107-silence-egyptian-media-polic-killed-coptic-christians

 

Edited June 22, 2019 by Argus

[Argus]

20 hours ago, dialamah said:

I don't much care if Muslims consider her an apostate; I too am considered an apostate by J W, as are you.  Do you suppose the JWs have a different reaction if we criticize them?

Well... they don't cut your head off...

[Marocc]

23 hours ago, dialamah said:

I don't much care if Muslims consider her an apostate;

She isn't just considered an apostate. She is one.

4 hours ago, dialamah said:

If a government or a cleric supports or proposes a law that, for instance, victimizes women or children or gay people or non-believers, and justifies that law as "Islamic" based on something in the Quran, the Hadith or the Sunnah, then I suppose I will have to agree with Islam's detractors that Islam as a religion is barbaric, backward and ignorant.  Now, personally, I don't want to do that simply because I know too many Muslims who are the opposite of barbaric, backward and ignorant.   The only way I can support my Muslim family and friends is to 'decide what befits the law and what doesn't.'   

I have some limited understanding of the role of Sharia in Islam so I would not expect Muslims to do away with Sharia, and use our laws instead.

This is  exactly what I am getting at. 

I am more aware than most Westerners of the differences in how Sharia law is implemented in Islamic countries.  I am aware that several countries have dual systems, where Sharia is only applied in family matters and criminal matters are not.  Or that in most countries (not all), Sharia or portions of Sharia only apply to Muslims while people of other beliefs are under a different system.  

That's simply not true.  For instance - stoning for adultery.  This is not supported in the Quran, yet it is a legal punishment in several Islamic countries, who use the Hadith to legitimize it.  How is that not interpreting Islam?

If a person resides in a country that prescribes "death to apostates", a punishment based on Hadith rather than the Quran, how exactly is he supposed to "reject" that?  He cannot, because his government and the religious authorities impose that on him.   It is simply not possible to excuse or ignore the role of Islamic governments and clerics in 'interpreting' Islam for the people under their authority.

If Islam cannot be forced on anyone, why do so many Islamic countries make adherence to Islam a requirement for freedom from legal consequences and/or persecution?   Why do so few Muslims really understand their religion, if its up to them to determine the 'truth' of Islam?  Why do so few Muslim leaders actually lead according to the Quran, but instead use Hadiths and other sources to impose behaviors on Muslims under their control?

As long as so many of Islam's leaders rely on interpretations of the Quran through Hadiths, then people in the world will never know what Islam is.  And yeah, Muslims will always be persecuted if they continue to fail to take responsibility for what their leaders practice and teach.

So you think Islam is barbaric, ignorant and backward but practice living in denial rather than finding out what it's all about?

It's not called interpreting Islam. No one knows about the timeline of those hadiths so there is no proof they came about after the revealed verses.

Some of the punishments you dislike are in the Quran no? So is hadith thing really the core of your problem? Muslims may differ in thoughts about certain hadiths, but they don't reject any verses in the Quran.

3 hours ago, Argus said:

That she is no longer a Muslim has no relevance to what she does or does not know about Islam unless you think Islam has changed a lot in the last dozen years. And my understanding is it has not changed in the last many centuries.

The reason I know she knows nothing is that I've heard her talk.

that she's an apostate and says people should run away from Islam as fast as they can means she isn't the person to pretend to be on the side of Muslims. No, not even the women. It also means she's not the one to make demands for reforms. And her 'reforms' go far beyond sharia..

[dialamah]

46 minutes ago, Marocc said:

So you think Islam is barbaric, ignorant and backward

That is not what I said.  Try again.

Quote

but practice living in denial rather than finding out what it's all about?

I do more than the average Westerner to find out "what it's all about".  

47 minutes ago, Marocc said:

Some of the punishments you dislike are in the Quran no?

Does the Quran require stoning of adulterers, and jailing or execution of gay people, apostates and non-believers?   I do not think it does, I believe those laws - where they are in place - rely on hadiths for justification, not.the Quran.  If I am wrong, then please educate me.  If I am correct, then explain how these hadiths do not "interpret" Islam.

[Marocc]

10 hours ago, dialamah said:

That is not what I said.  Try again.

I do more than the average Westerner to find out "what it's all about".  

Does the Quran require stoning of adulterers, and jailing or execution of gay people, apostates and non-believers?   I do not think it does, I believe those laws - where they are in place - rely on hadiths for justification, not.the Quran.  If I am wrong, then please educate me.  If I am correct, then explain how these hadiths do not "interpret" Islam.

It's good you've done more than an average to find out but that doesn't qualify you to make decisions for nations about it - not to mention deciding on God's will.

The Quran does mention the flogging and cutting off hands and feet. I thought you would consider them vile.

Hadiths don't "interpret" Islam. They are simply things said around the time of Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam), based on which Muslims know about their history and about what is good for a Muslims and what is not. There is such a thing as interpreting of a Hadith.

[Michael Hardner]

12 hours ago, Marocc said:

... she's an apostate and says people should run away from Islam as fast as they can means she isn't the person to pretend to be on the side of Muslims. No, not even the women. It also means she's not the one to make demands for reforms. And her 'reforms' go far beyond sharia..

No - she says she IS a Muslim.  Your religion is changing under your feet.  You will be no different than other religious hardliners who claim reformers do not even share your faith, but I expect their numbers will grow as the other 'Abrahamic' religious experienced.

[Marocc]

23 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No - she says she IS a Muslim.  Your religion is changing under your feet.  You will be no different than other religious hardliners who claim reformers do not even share your faith, but I expect their numbers will grow as the other 'Abrahamic' religious experienced.

She says she is an atheist.

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, Marocc said:

She says she is an atheist.

She calls herself Muslim in the first 30 seconds when asked directly.

[Marocc]

17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

She calls herself Muslim in the first 30 seconds when asked directly.

That's not Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, Marocc said:

That's not Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

I misread, sorry.

[scribblet]

U.K. Police  have finally arrested 44 rape gang members 17 years after their criminal spree.   Why so long… 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/kirklees-grooming-gang-yorkshire-child-sex-abuse-police-arrests-a8968501.html

 

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/huddersfield-grooming-gang-member-pal-16462781

[dialamah]

4 hours ago, Marocc said:

It's good you've done more than an average to find out but that doesn't qualify you to make decisions for nations about it - not to mention deciding on God's will.

I am unable to 'make decisions for nations', but I can criticize the decisions that nations make - which is what I am doing.  If the Quran is the perfect expression of God's will, and Islamic nations claim to be following God's will, but then they implement laws that are not supported by anything in the Quran, then I can hardly be 'deciding on God's will'.  If anything, it's Islamic nations implementing these things that are 'deciding on God's will".   

Quote

The Quran does mention the flogging and cutting off hands and feet. I thought you would consider them vile.

Yup, I would.  In this particular discussion, however, I am criticizing those nations that use punishments not mentioned in the Quran and claim they are Islamic, even if those claims are based on interpretations of God's will through the Hadiths.   

Quote

Hadiths don't "interpret" Islam. They are simply things said around the time of Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam), based on which Muslims know about their history and about what is good for a Muslims and what is not.

As I understand it, Hadiths are claims made about what Muhammed said, did or intended passed down as oral traditions after the death of Muhammed, and documented some generations later.  Given that the passage of time inevitably affects accuracy in regards to an initial event, and that things like human imperfection, not to mention politics and current events, will also affect records after the fact, and one has to question just how well these Hadiths actually reflect God's will as expressed in the Quran, or even Muhammed's teachings.    And given that Hadiths contradict each other, I'd say that's even more evidence that Hadiths themselves are, essentially, interpretations of Islam.

Quote

There is such a thing as interpreting of a Hadith.

I'm sure there is.  But my point is that when a Hadith says, for example, that a homosexual should be put to death even though the Quran may specify a different punishment - that Hadith is interpreting the Quran and God's will.  A nation that chooses to use a Hadith that contradicts what the Quran actually says is also choosing to interpret Islam.  

Every avowed Muslim in the world believes they are following the 'perfect' religion, yet there are so many different beliefs.  How could this be the result of anything but various interpretations of the Quran, of what Muhammed taught?   If religious and government leaders impose different versions of Sharia law under the claim that they are following God's will, how could that be anything but different interpretations of Islam?

Saying that "Islam is perfect and cannot be interpreted" does not address the fact that there are, in fact, so many interpretations and practices of Islam around the world. 

 

Edited June 23, 2019 by dialamah

[dialamah]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Your religion is changing under your feet.  You will be no different than other religious hardliners who claim reformers do not even share your faith, but I expect their numbers will grow as the other 'Abrahamic' religious experienced.

I agree with this.  Islam may be some years behind Christianity, but I think it will follow the path of Christianity and Judaism over time, though no doubt there will always be those small pockets of fundamentalists.  People seem to need traditions that run the gamut from very liberal to very illiberal, with most falling somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.

[Argus]

19 hours ago, Marocc said:

The reason I know she knows nothing is that I've heard her talk.

That you disagree with her does not mean she knows nothing about Islam. It's frankly silly you would think so.

19 hours ago, Marocc said:

that she's an apostate and says people should run away from Islam as fast as they can means she isn't the person to pretend to be on the side of Muslims. No, not even the women. It also means she's not the one to make demands for reforms. And her 'reforms' go far beyond sharia..

Islam needs reform. Christianity and Judaism had their reformations, and Islam is long overdue for one. Right now it' still stuck in medieval times, demanding death and other harsh punishments for people who commit 'moral' crimes, or crimes against the religion. No one is ever going to accept Muslmi countries as being civilized until it abandons such medieval notions.

The plain and simple fact is if you believe someone should be executed for committing apostasy or blaspheme then you're not a civilized person and have no business even being allowed entry into a civilized country.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

I agree with this.  Islam may be some years behind Christianity, but I think it will follow the path of Christianity and Judaism over time,

How much time? Centuries? It has not only not been moderating over the past half century it has actually gotten more extreme. There is little sign of moderation except from small groups of individuals in western countries. Even those Muslim countries notionally thought of as 'moderate' have been getting more extremist over the past decades, including Egypt, Turkey, Malaysia and Indonesia.

Edited June 23, 2019 by Argus

[Marocc]

19 hours ago, dialamah said:

I am unable to 'make decisions for nations', but I can criticize the decisions that nations make - which is what I am doing.  If the Quran is the perfect expression of God's will, and Islamic nations claim to be following God's will, but then they implement laws that are not supported by anything in the Quran, then I can hardly be 'deciding on God's will'.  If anything, it's Islamic nations implementing these things that are 'deciding on God's will".   

Yup, I would.  In this particular discussion, however, I am criticizing those nations that use punishments not mentioned in the Quran and claim they are Islamic, even if those claims are based on interpretations of God's will through the Hadiths.   

As I understand it, Hadiths are claims made about what Muhammed said, did or intended passed down as oral traditions after the death of Muhammed, and documented some generations later.  Given that the passage of time inevitably affects accuracy in regards to an initial event, and that things like human imperfection, not to mention politics and current events, will also affect records after the fact, and one has to question just how well these Hadiths actually reflect God's will as expressed in the Quran, or even Muhammed's teachings.    And given that Hadiths contradict each other, I'd say that's even more evidence that Hadiths themselves are, essentially, interpretations of Islam.

I'm sure there is.  But my point is that when a Hadith says, for example, that a homosexual should be put to death even though the Quran may specify a different punishment - that Hadith is interpreting the Quran and God's will.  A nation that chooses to use a Hadith that contradicts what the Quran actually says is also choosing to interpret Islam.  

Every avowed Muslim in the world believes they are following the 'perfect' religion, yet there are so many different beliefs.  How could this be the result of anything but various interpretations of the Quran, of what Muhammed taught?   If religious and government leaders impose different versions of Sharia law under the claim that they are following God's will, how could that be anything but different interpretations of Islam?

Saying that "Islam is perfect and cannot be interpreted" does not address the fact that there are, in fact, so many interpretations and practices of Islam around the world. 

 

When people critise they often forget that if their own ideas were implemented everything would fall apart in a day or two. In other words, yeah you can, but that doesn't mean you should. Especially with such a tone.

Hadiths don't need to be supported by the Quran per se. It is sufficient they are authentic and not contradicted by the Quran.

By interpretation of Islam you might mean one's interpretation of what the religion should objectively be. But Islam literally means submitting to the will of Allah (Subhaanahu wa ta'ala) , which is why there is no such a thing as interpreting Islam for Muslims and for non-Muslims it is waste of time in practice because they do not believe.

You just interpreted a hadith. Did you do well? Are you correct in the interpretation of it?

15 hours ago, Argus said:

That you disagree with her does not mean she knows nothing about Islam. It's frankly silly you would think so.

Islam needs reform. Christianity and Judaism had their reformations, and Islam is long overdue for one. Right now it' still stuck in medieval times, demanding death and other harsh punishments for people who commit 'moral' crimes, or crimes against the religion. No one is ever going to accept Muslmi countries as being civilized until it abandons such medieval notions.

The plain and simple fact is if you believe someone should be executed for committing apostasy or blaspheme then you're not a civilized person and have no business even being allowed entry into a civilized country.

I didn't express disagreement at all. I stated she's wrong. It's a fact for all who are educated in the matter (even non-Muslims).

Christianity and Judaism have had several reformations.

Actually a lot of Muslim countries are considered civilised. However, I wouldn't bet on that they care to be considered anything by non-Muslims. There's a reason they have their own countries with their own laws.

15 hours ago, Argus said:

How much time? Centuries? It has not only not been moderating over the past half century it has actually gotten more extreme. There is little sign of moderation except from small groups of individuals in western countries. Even those Muslim countries notionally thought of as 'moderate' have been getting more extremist over the past decades, including Egypt, Turkey, Malaysia and Indonesia.

Increase in the amount of terrorist strikes doesn't equal Islam becoming more extreme, not to mention more extremist.

[GostHacked]

17 hours ago, Argus said:

How much time? Centuries? It has not only not been moderating over the past half century it has actually gotten more extreme.

How long has secularism been a part of modern western nations? Not long, Less than a century. And in the case of the USA, regarding abortion laws, they are starting to go backwards instead of forward. So one can kind of cut Muslims a break, but we can continue to work with them on integrating into western societies.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

How long has secularism been a part of modern western nations? Not long, Less than a century. And in the case of the USA, regarding abortion laws, they are starting to go backwards instead of forward.

So one can kind of cut Muslims a break, but we can continue to work with them on integrating into western societies.

Interesting take.  What point do you think secular started?  Someone would say 1776 and some would say never.

 

[dialamah]

2 hours ago, Marocc said:

When people critise they often forget that if their own ideas were implemented everything would fall apart in a day or two.

Are you saying that if Iran repealed its laws prescribing death for homosexual behavior, Iran would fall apart in a day or two?  The Quran does not prescribe any particular punishment for apostasy.  Would a country such as Saudi Arabia fall apart if they failed to punish apostates?  If there is no compulsion in religion and if both Jews and Christians are considered "people if the book" along with Muslims, would Egypt suddenly fall apart if they stopped requiring government ID to specify one of those three religions and making conversion between those religions a government tracked event?

Quote

In other words, yeah you can, but that doesn't mean you should

If that is the response when questioned, then how does a Muslim or even a potential convert** follow this expectation:

Quote

It is an individual Muslim's duty to find the information they need or to try their best. So if a Muslim is wrongly guided because of a cleric, he is responsible for it himself as there are many highly respected Islamic scholars in the world. The main idea is that if a teaching - no matter who it comes from - is controversial to the Qur'an or the Prophet's (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) teachings, which are available for all to read, it is to be rejected. 

 

And, if a Muslim individual determines that the teachings of their clerics and/or actions of their government are not Islamic, how do they reject it without putting their liberty and perhaps their life on the line?

2 hours ago, Marocc said:

Especially with such a tone.

What do you mean?  How are you "hearing" my tone?  If we were face-to-face, my tone would be quiet, gentle and thoughtful.  There would be pauses as I tried to find the right words to express myself honestly, but with respect.  I understand that much of this does not come across in text, especially as I am known for being straightforward and matter-of-fact amongst my friends, which is softened by my actual tone and demeanor.

2 hours ago, Marocc said:

Hadiths don't need to be supported by the Quran per se. It is sufficient they are authentic and not contradicted by the Quran.

So if the Quran does not mention stoning adulterers, then its perfectly fine to implement that as part of Sharia law because someone (not Muhammed, but maybe his friend) said "I know Muhammad thought stoning was acceptable.", and an expert, perhaps centuries later, included that as a Hadith?   

While you may not see Islam as interpretable, I think the hadiths and the stated expectation that individual Muslims determine the truth of what clerics and leaders tell them, I think this makes Islam very interpretable. 

I think this helps explain why there is such a variety of belief in Islam, despite the claim that it is perfect and cannot be changed.  It gives me even more hope for its progression into a more humanistic and freedom-loving religion.  The "extremism" Argus speaks of is no doubt the death throes of governments and fundamentalists who see their influence and legitimacy waning.

2 hours ago, Marocc said:

Increase in the amount of terrorist strikes doesn't equal Islam becoming more extreme, not to mention more extremist.

He isn't referring specifically to terrorism, but to what seems to be an increase of a more conservative and oppressive interpretation of Islam in (some) Islamic countries.  He and I differ very much on how civilized Muslims are generally and how well they can fit into a progressive Western country, and argue often about it.

**not me.  

[DogOnPorch]

12 minutes ago, dialamah said:

The Quran does not prescribe any particular punishment for apostasy.

Well.......

They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.

https://quran.com/4/89

...and may I remind you, I did not write the Quran.

[betsy]

On 6/22/2019 at 1:45 PM, dialamah said:

If a government or a cleric supports or proposes a law that, for instance, victimizes women or children or gay people or non-believers, and justifies that law as "Islamic" based on something in the Quran, the Hadith or the Sunnah, then I suppose I will have to agree with Islam's detractors that Islam as a religion is barbaric, backward and ignorant.  Now, personally, I don't want to do that simply because I know too many Muslims who are the opposite of barbaric, backward and ignorant.   The only way I can support my Muslim family and friends is to 'decide what befits the law and what doesn't.'  

They aren't really practitioners of Islam any longer.

[GostHacked]

54 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Interesting take.  What point do you think secular started?  Someone would say 1776 and some would say never.

 

I would say secularism started to take in the first 1/4 of the 1900s in the USA and Canada. I cannot be for certain, as I have nothing to measure and quantify level of secularism within the USA or Canada at that time. I don't even think we in Canada can be considered secular, meaning we don't let religion influence our laws and government. But we still swear on the bible when in court and stuff like that. 

Quebec seems to be taking secularism to another level with banning religious symbols for public servants. To me this seems fair as they are banning all religious symbols. If you are really religious, then public service is not the route you should take if it goes against your values or religion.

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by GostHacked

[DogOnPorch]

Secularism has its roots in ancient times.

Stoics, etc.

Think Zeno & Marcus Aurelius...