Books by A.O. Kime
"Metaphysical realities in America's politically-challenged democracy"
"A sagacious accounting of the Stone Age and the beginnings of civilization"
U.S. colleges and trade schools
Odd combination of directories you think? See 'faces'
A.O. Kime Articles:
Shoofly Village ruins
Stone Age history
Stone Age timelines
Stone Age tools
Dynamics of now
Evil (nature of)
Gift of life
Light (nature of)
Time (nature of)
Curse of science
Int'l Criminal Court
Rule of law
(1st edition - Apr 2016) by A.O. Kime
for information on 'renting' this article, see Rent-a-Article
It seems preposterous that a ‘religion’ - those which condones the
killing of non-believers - is nonetheless still called a ‘religion’. It
flies in the face of reason. Yet, perhaps it is because we’ve painted a
pretty picture of what religions are supposed to be… you know, mutual
respect, kindness and all that jazz. Instead, religions were never
intended to be entirely altruistic.
Although about spiritual relationships, they are also about ‘domination’… both personally and geopolitically.
Since the term ‘religion’ is a fairly recent term - first coined in the 17th century - it’s been a struggle to define what religions actually are. Scholarly definitions range widely… from overly broad to narrow in scope. Nobody can fully agree.
Historically however - previous to the invention of ‘religion‘ as a word - the spiritual tenets in most societies were referred to as ’law’. Often, of course, it was expected that the associated laws be obeyed (most notoriously during the Spanish Inquisition).
But despite the attempt to categorize the matter differently, in many ways religious tenets can still be defined as law (effectively). But, in reality, the term ‘creed’ describes the modus operandi of organized religions better. For example… the Islamic creed, the Christian creed, etc., etc.
Seemingly, the term ’religion’ should only be applicable to one’s personal beliefs where there is no organized stranglehold. It fits better since there isn’t any associated boloney. Minus the rituals, pretence and other nonsense, one’s personal beliefs are ‘pure‘ (beliefs only). It doesn’t matter whether these beliefs are on target or not. What counts is one’s sincere interest… not the accuracy of what they determined.
Unimpressed would God be with an adopted belief. Nor, given the mysterious nature of the spirit world, would he expect one to have it figured out. All that matters is the attempt… although the attempt is less productive when one’s spiritual forces are injured.
While the stated reason for the separation of the church and state was
so citizens could be free to worship any way they want, but also the
laws of the church would have been deemed a threat to civil authority as
well. A new definition was therefore appropriate and likely prompted by
the hell of the Spanish Inquisition.
And, to distinguish it from civil law was necessary. After all, conflicting laws of the land cannot coexist. In order for justice to prevail civil law must reign supreme.
Justice, after all, isn’t exactly the forte of these organizations. It is selective at best.
Still, the invention of a new word (religion) doesn’t seem to have necessary when ‘creed’ could have defined the matter.
creed: 1: a brief authoritative formula of religious belief 2: a set of
fundamental beliefs; a guiding principle
credo (Latin): I believe
In addition, given the track record of many religions - from burning
people alive on the stake - to beheadings - to ethnic cleansing - to the
30 Years War (Europe) and so forth and so on ad infinitum - calling them
an innocent-sounding term such as ‘religion’ is outrageous. More like it
would be ‘scourge‘.
It wasn’t just a few heretics burned alive at the state either… reportedly, from the Catholics own records, they pit to death some 34,000.
Of course, Muslims and the Catholics would rather be called a religion than a scourge.
However, there is latitude in the term ’creed’. It is neither offensive or flattering. It could apply to even the most peaceful of these organized institutions. Since they are what their creed says they are, one can then more precisely define each one individually … i.e., a Jihadist creed, a social club creed, a sun-worshiping creed, a hell and brim fire creed, the creed of the hypocrites on Main Street , etc., etc..
Labels such as Presbyterian or Methodist tells us nothing except for being brand names.
Nonetheless, we still have a religion thinking they have the right to
make the law of the land… namely Islam (Sharia law) . While for over a
thousand years Christianity (Catholics) thought they had that right,
still lingering today with that same mentality are most Muslims. It
appears especially true in the Middle East… less so in other regions.
Muslims, it seems, are still stuck in the 12th century.
Of course, as long as Islam is being called a ’religion’ there is the ‘freedom of religion’ component… largely recognized by the West as a ‘right‘. Therefore, the ‘business’ of the Muslims have been largely put off-limits. However, in respect to the Jihadists it’s like putting off-limits the business of the Nazis. Or tip-toeing around the fact the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. In retaliation, to only want to find and prosecute the bomb-dropping pilots wasn‘t enough then and it isn‘t enough now.
Nor was it thought “dangerous” to directly engage the enemy (Hillary Clinton’s position over the ongoing Jihadist threat). Yes, Hillary, war is dangerous.
Likewise today, the national media are only obsessed with the names of the actual bombers… as if by naming them is a measure of success (by the police). Except it isn’t progress but instead the citing of terrorist accomplishments.
But to argue (declare) Islam is not a religion but instead a creed - in
that the murder of innocents is entirely ungodly -- the Imams who preach
it would lose their ‘cover‘. The realities, after all, are what ‘power’ says
they are. World powers has always described things as they want them
described. The history books are proof (the victors write them).
With this decree in hand, there should be warrants issued for their arrest… rewards offered for their capture. After all, engaging in or promoting genocide or/or accessory to murder is a crime.
If there’s no country to blame, it’s the only alternative. However, while to go after the guilty Imams would likely inflame certain Islamic countries, causing them to overtly protect these Imams, we could then know them as the real (substantive) enemy. It would diplomatically “flush them out” of their otherwise secretive anti-West position.
For one, allegedly contained within the secret “28 pages” of the 9/11 Report is enough information to publicly “flush out” Saudi Arabia (if or when declassified). We might soon know. Of course, some countries don’t need flushed out… like Iran. We already know where they stand.
If we’re ever going to win the war on terror then we must confront the root causes… namely the instigators. It means putting out of commission either the country or the guilty Imams. It does little good to focus on the actual perpetrators after each incidence. After all, during regular wars the names of the enemy soldiers don’t matter. They never mattered. Only the opposing (culpable) country and its leaders matter.
Of course, in reference to Islam the term ‘creed” is still beating around the bush somewhat. If we really wanted to define the world view of the Jihadist Muslims correctly we’d call it insanity. Yet, there is an insane aspect to all organized religions. That is, being made to feel obligated to believe as that institution believes. The idea that one could (or should) control what another believes was surely thought madness initially.
It was surely thought to be the mother of all galls and the effrontery of all time. All that lingers today however is the odor of impudence. Over the idea even the laughter is gone.
If, however, Jihad does not hold preeminence in the mindset of most
Muslims… where is the outcry over the bombings and beheadings from the
Well, we never hear of any outcries… filling the airways is only the eerie drone of silence. Also conspicuously absent is any known “Muslims against violence” activity. It should be known by Muslims, of course, that the West would be outraged… that the West would seek revenge. How could they blame us? How could they expect us not to become suspicious of all silent Muslims?
Seemingly, this silence can only mean one of two things… either it’s fear of reprisals or it’s a time bomb ticking. But if renouncing the violence is thought to be so personally dangerous then it likely means “when push comes to shove” America can’t count on the loyalty of Muslims. It is, then, a time bomb ticking.
While most Muslims living in America act peacefully and seem to be good Americans but because they are Muslims, we must assume Islam is where their loyalty lies. At least it’s been true with most Muslims throughout history. How many would remain neutral, however, is anyone’s guess.
Of course, in the event of a direct confrontation with a Christian church, we might also wonder how their members would react… although none complained when all those child-molesting priests were arrested.
But given the difficulty in siding one way or the other - whether Muslim or Christian - neutrality is all the authorities should expect or hope for.
Therefore, in the event of a direct confrontation with Islam, the danger posed by those who would side with Islam - instead of America - is relative to how many live in America. While America was made of immigrants - a melting pot as it were - “give me your tired, your poor” surely didn’t mean just anybody… especially not potential Trojan Horse saboteurs.
And, if the civilized countries of the West can’t silence the provocateurs then a direct confrontation with the guilty country or countries seems inevitable… necessary. The West can’t allow the slaughter of innocents to go on continually… and it will as long as it remains just a police matter.
Militarily, only the brazenness of someone like General William Tecumseh Sherman or General George S. Patten would quickly settle the matter. Pussy-footing around never works.
And, in the Middle East, the policy “you’re either for us or against us” is a must. We’d find we have more ‘friendlies’ than we thought. Their boots, not ours, could then be utilized. It's their mess.
Last modified: 04/13/16