Category Archives: Uncategorized

All I’ve Got To Say About a Monument

Am I the only one who reads the article from Fox news, sees an alternative that acknowledges just about everybody

“Silverman said way for the city to avoid a lawsuit is to create a free speech zone where plaques representing all religions could be posted.”

suggested by American Atheists and works with each of the reasons made for using just one beam

“I’m fighting to have this cross there because I believe that someone’s story is behind that. That story needs to be told. It has nothing to do with religious faith. It has something to do with telling history.””

along with

“…There’s so much behind that. If we do not show the cross, we are leaving out someone’s story. We are basically saying someone’s emotions that day didn’t matter.”

and then notices that the alternative doesn’t even get a second glance, even seemingly ignored in favor of a method that has less work which not all people who pass by it may see, made all the more absurd by noticing details that would suggest the alternative might be fairly easy to do, such as

“James explained that in the days after the terrorist attacks, symbols like the cross and the Star of David were routinely cut out of the beams and given to family members.”

So, somebody can point to a group of atheists organized to promote alternatives that are more inclusive yet consistent with the reasons provided for using the single beam in question, and willing to use the law to do what they can to see it happen. I’m sorry if I come across as an asshole, but somehow that doesn’t come across as something to be worried about, or even decent criticism, especially when compared to the way one quote could be restated.

There’s so much behind that. If we do not show the Star of David, we are leaving out someone’s story. We are basically saying someone’s emotions that day didn’t matter.”

There’s so much behind that. If we do not show the lotus, we are leaving out someone’s story. We are basically saying someone’s emotions that day didn’t matter.”

One could go on with other images that could be used.

But, perhaps the image that might be most appropriate, and perhaps most overlooked, is an image of the flag of the United States of America, especially if such images are to be in the middle of such beams, for if the beam were to represent a mast, and the flag were to represent a nation, it would represent a nation in constant mourning and remembrance of what happened. While it would ignore what other nations lost on that day, they could have their own flags flown at half mast near the symbol.

Less than a millisecond per person, or eight per second. Take your pick

I just had one of those oddball thoughts run through my head. The general idea among Christians is that Jesus had sacrificed himself to provide people with a means through which they could be saved seems odd in a few different ways, but there was one way in particular that stood out, and for a particular reason. How long one would’ve been dead, or even on the cross, if the events described are even accurate. The reason this seemed odd to me is that growing up, there were a few who had said something along the lines of “he was thinking of you on the cross.” So how long was he on the cross and dead? For the purposes of this post, I’ll go with a week. Its more than the three days mentioned in the Gospels for his death before the resurrection, and still more if you decide to include the time spent on the cross.

(60 (seconds) * 60 (minutes) * 24 (hours) * 7 (days)) / 8,000,000,000 (rounded the number of people currently living on the planet

The total comes out to roughly 0.0000756 seconds per person living today. That is, of course, ignoring everybody who had lived before, and everybody who will ever live. But, why not go with his entire lifetime? He lived to be roughly 30 (most I’ve seen have said 33), but I’ll say 35 for the sake of easy measurements.

60*60*24*365*35+(8(highest number of leap years)*60*60*24)= 1,104,451,200

In other words, one billion, one hundred four million, four hundred fifty one thousand, two hundred seconds. Thinking of roughly eight people per second during his entire lifetime. And thats just for those who’re alive today, ignoring everybody else who has been, or ever will be.

Shoot, depending on when you think the “soul” enters the fetus, then we’d have an even more for him to think of in both instances.

Now, might those who wish to say that he was thinking of anybody or everybody while on the cross try to support their claim? Because, just looking at the numbers, it seems rather unlikely. This is, of course, ignoring how much time you loose for trying to think of individual people, when in pain.

The Reason Rally is worth coming out for

I have enough respect for female anatomy to know that I will regret this statement, but the author of this article is one moronic cunt.

First of all, regarding her criticism of Silverman’s statements about the Christian/Religious right attempting to christianize the USA. Has she seen the popular Republican candidates during the last few elections? How would she describe them? Nonreligious? Moderately Religious? Willing to consider upholding a secular constitution? Or the type of people that hold prayer rallies (Rick Perry), say that they would not recognize a separation between church and state (Rick Santorum), and say that the wars of their nation are divinely guided(George Bush)? I swear, if any one of them were in the Middle East, Fox news would be calling them terrorists on a regular basis.

Regarding her statement
“It seems, in fact, that the very thing that irks today’s atheists about religious people is that they have a strong, unifying vision of good society and that they are willing to live by it, well, religiously.”

I have no qualms if they, or any other group, has a unified vision of what they regard as a good society. What upsets me is what they regard as a good society. One in which
– criticism and attempts at outreach to likeminded individuals who hold ideas contrary to their position, no matter how mild is not permitted, either by the taking down of signs or by deterrence through fear, while signs saying “God Hates Fags” are permitted. If the criticism is not permitted, then neither should be the target of that criticism.
– the science textbook becomes the first chapter of the bible, and everything summarized as “God said it, and I believe it. I will reject any evidence contrary to that, no matter how valid or well supported.
– abstinence only sex education is the norm.
scares the now rather odorous contents of my colon into the back of my pants and the contents of my stomach out through an involuntary protein spill.

Now I know a lot of religious people wouldn’t support most of that. The problem is, there aren’t many who would fight against it. So it’s the shrill assholes like myself who grew up with that shit who speak out against it, criticize it, and do what we can to make sure that it isn’t a reality, if at all possible.

Regarding her statement that
“But those of us interested in advancing a human-centred vision of the future would do better focusing on important things like wealth creation, liberty, scientific advancement and creating great art. With these things comes enlightenment.”

Then allow me to point out. The primary obstacle to liberty, such as reproductive rights, has been religion. Consider the recent bit when a bill went through, permitting religious employers to decide that their health coverage would not cover things such as abortions, but permitted employees of those employers to go to the company itself to obtain coverage. What did the employers say? No, we won’t have it. If we say no, there is no way they’ll get it. We’ll scream religious persecution if you do not give us what we want. How much further should I go? Preventing and opposing equal rights in the United States? That one alone could fill up an encyclopedia with examples of how religion was used to support inequality.
The primary obstacle to scientific development, will always be religion. Be it through wanting to keep its followers intentionally ignorant, or by trying to extend that ignorance to others through the take over of education boards and attempts to pass bills pushing “creation science” into the science classroom. And the only great art to come from religion was done so at the expense of free expression.

While I do agree that anybody wishing to enlighten others would have to work on those things, making sure that the biggest obstacle to all of them is weakened, by means of removing its influence from government, and from the education boards, is going to make it easier. And religious people will be fighting, kicking, and screaming all the way out.

Regarding the statement
“atheists are not being persecuted for denying the existence of God”

Pardon me? Have you seen the buckle of the bible belt? Has she heard of how many people have been disowned by their families? Has she heard of how many people have lost their jobs only because they told somebody they were an atheist? Does she know of how many children will tell the children of atheists “You’re going to hell”? I know of people who’ve gone through each of these, and quite frankly, about the only reason you don’t see that much is for the same reason you don’t see many signs of oppression of gay people prior to Stonewall (although, I will point out it was illegal, something that I know some christians would have no problems with outlawing again, just as they’d have no problem without making atheism illegal). They were silent. Now, we’re, for the most part, silent. Most remain silent because having the nerve to say that you aren’t “sane” enough to believe that the ills of the world began when a talking snake got the first woman to eat some fruit, who then convinced the only other living person at the time is considered offensive to some people.
.
Honestly, if the author was anything resembling a reporter, she would’ve contemplated asking those who are involved, are presenting, and being presented as reasons to come, things such as “What is the purpose behind it?” “Can you cite any examples of the things you provide as reasons for the rally?” Basic stuff like that.

Posted as a comment response to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathalie-rothschild/why-the-reason-rally-isnt_b_1320748.html

Why you don’t want to use Hamza

Well, this’ll be interesting. Somebody quoting from Tzortzis, and employing some of his favorite tactics as he displayed at the World Atheist Convention in Dublin Ireland. Keep in mind, if a statement has already been addressed, I’m less likely to address it, again. After all, I started at about three in the morning.

For those of you unfamiliar with the context, the sections posted in quotation marks is what was posted as a response to comments I made in Ban the Adhaalath, or quoting from another source. The link to this will be posted so I’m not having to copy and past all of it, can add comments to a response section for this, etc.

“Created or brought into being from nothing

We know the universe couldn’t have come out of nothing, because out of nothing, nothing comes! This is an undeniable philosophical principle, as P. J. Zwart in his publication About Time explains,

“If there is anything we find inconceivable it is that something could arise from nothing.”[8]”

That wouldn’t happen to be the publication entitled About Time: A Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin and Nature of Time ? I notice this going over your comments. Your source refers to a lot of philosophers, and not many scientists when you refer to statements and claims made. So I have to ask, why go with philosophers over scientists who work on the subject?

Edit: June 8, 2013

Somebody had provided an interesting link regarding this point in the comments section. Unfortunately, I don’t have access to the original source to verify this, but it would appear that Hamza, not only plagiarized others (WLC is one common example of people Hamza has plagiarized), but misrepresented others by copying many of the same ideas from others.
“A significant point to raise here is that nothingness should not be misconstrued as the nothingness that some physicists talk about. The term nothingness in this context refers to the absence of anything physical, in other words there is no pre-existing ‘stuff’.”

And if you had asked me for the context of how the word was used, I could’ve provided it, and this point could’ve been removed due to being irrelevant, or refined to be more relevant.

“In light of the beginning of the universe, there was absolutely nothing before it began to exist,”

So I have to ask, what is tzortzis’ definition of nothing in this situation? From the context of what was provided earlier (“not… misconstrued as the nothingness that some physicists talk about”), I’m inclined to believe that it is the dichotomy between the existence of something and the lack of anything detectable within the space that something existing would occupy.

“which is why physicists have explained the universe as having a space-time boundary.”

And it couldn’t be because before then, at the point of the singularity, defined as the point at which the laws of physics as we know them break down, such as time, space, and cause, concepts such as space-time are inapplicable as we know them?

“However, nothingness as defined by some physicists relates to the quantum vacuum. This is misleading because the quantum is something. In quantum theory the vacuum is a field of energy pervading the whole of the universe.”

How about we look at how that word, nothing, is used, such as in the abstract of an article, shall we?

From (http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept02/Kinney/frames.html) “The underlying theme is that cosmology gives us a unique window on the “PHYSICS OF NOTHING,” or the quantum-mechanical properties of the vacuum. The theory of inflation postulates that vacuum energy, or something very much like it, was the dominant force shaping the evolution of the very early universe. Recent astrophysical observations indicate that vacuum energy, or something very much like it, is also the dominant component of the universe today.”

Now, I know that you’ll (the person who had posted the comment) be motivated to use vacuum energy to say that “It isn’t nothing.” You might want to double check that before doing it. From a relatively quick search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum#In_quantum_mechanics), “In quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, the vacuum is defined as the state (i.e. solution to the equations of the theory) with the lowest possible energy (the ground state of the Hilbert space). This is a state with no matter particles (hence the name), and also no photons, no gravitons, etc. As described above, this state is impossible to achieve experimentally. (Even if every matter particle could somehow be removed from a volume, it would be impossible to eliminate all the blackbody photons.)”

That is more or less how nothing is defined within quantum physics, which is the way that I was using it, and indicated as such when I said “a possibility if you understand quantum physics.” To attempt to commit the equivocation fallacy by using the common interpretation of nothing is not going to help you out.

If you think that what I’ve said isn’t applicable with at least a little bit of research, then do that research yourself. If you think I need to do more, provide the references to the articles and books by those who work in the field (scientists, not science philosophers) so that I can learn for myself.

“ In the word’s of John Polkinghorne, a philosopher of science, the quantum vacuum,

“…is not ‘nothing’; it is a structured and highly active entity.”[9]”

Scientists or provide a basis on which the ideas of philosophers should be accepted. Granted, because these aren’t your thoughts, or something which you’ve attempted to research to any extent, I don’t expect you to provide one.
“So, in context of some of the physicists’ definition, the universe could not have come from absolutely nothing, as the quantum vacuum is something.”

The definition of a quantum vacuum is pretty close to NOTHING! Pardon the lame joke.

“It is a sea of fluctuating energy, which is still part of the cosmos and it did not pre-exist the universe. This point leads us nicely to the next possible explanation

1. The quantum vacuum is not nothing, so the claim that the universe came from nothing, because of the observations made at the quantum level, is misleading. The vacuum is actually something; it is a sea of fluctuating energy with a rich structure and obeys the laws of the universe. This is why many physicists are adopting a deterministic view of the observations made at the quantum level, for instance the David Bohm interpretation being one of them.”

  • Which physicists? Its stated that they do, and no examples are provided. It could’ve been strengthened with just a few names, and yet that opportunity is overlooked.
  • While the David Bohm interpretation is provided, arguably as an example, it would be one aspect which is deterministic. If I were to put it into the context of something I’m much more familiar with, biology, it would be akin to saying that despite the selective mechanisms producing relatively predictable changes, evolution must be completely random because of the random aspects.

2. “ Philosophically speaking how can these physicists, like Stephen Hawking who adopt an indeterministic view, justify their conclusions? I don’t think they have a strong argument because everything we perceive in the universe comes into being via a cause, things change and events happen because of causes. This is the undeniable default position to take because the collective experience of mankind has never experienced or witnessed things coming into being out of nothing, and without the concept of causality we will not have the mental framework to understand our observations and experiences. In philosophical terms causality is a priori, which means knowledge we have independent of any experience.”

I’ll get around to what you regard as a priori, showing how your own examples are flawed.

“Some philosophers and scientists deny this and claim that you can’t think of examples of things we can know independent of experience.” It might help if you provided examples which weren’t contingent upon experience.

“ This is not true, take the following examples into consideration:

• Circles have no corners.”

And if you don’t know what a circle is, or what a corner is, you wouldn’t know that independent of experience, the experience being firsthand or through education.

“• Fathers are male.”

And if you don’t know what a father is, or male, or gender for that matter, you wouldn’t know that independent of experience, the experience being firsthand or through education.

“• 4+4 = 8.”
Which is dependent on knowing math and numbers. If you didn’t know either one of those, you wouldn’t be able to finish the equation. For example, while ½=.5 is slightly more complicated, the same basic idea applies.

“• Time is irreversible.”

Which is dependent on knowing the properties of time and what can be done at the moment. If you never knew or considered a concept like time, would you ever consider that it is irreversible?

“• Everything that begins to exist has a cause.”
And that one is an example of circular logic. Everything that begins to exist has a cause, because every cause, by definition, leads to something.

So from your examples, all but one are examples of things which aren’t known a priori, and the last one is an example of a logical fallacy. Are you certain that the position of the philosophers and scientists is unsupported bow?
“We know causality is true because we bring it to all our experience, rather than our experience bringing it to us. It is like wearing yellow-tinted glasses, everything looks yellow not because of anything out there in the world, but because of the glasses through which we are looking at everything. The contention that this is just an assumption is not true because without causality we would not be able to have the concept of an external reality. Take the following example into consideration; imagine you are looking at the White House in Washington DC. Your eyes may wonder to the door, across the pillars, then to the roof and finally over to the front lawn. Now contrast this to another experience, you are on the river Thames in London and you see a boat floating past. What dictates the order in which you had these experiences? When you looked at the White House you had a choice to see the door first and then the pillars and so on. However with the boat you had no choice as the front of the boat was the first to appear.

The point to take here is that you would not have been able to make the distinction that some experiences are ordered by yourself and others are ordered independently, unless we had the concept of causality. In absence of causality our experience would be very different from the way it is. It would be a single sequence of experiences only: one thing after another.”
“You may be wondering how this relate to God’s existence. Well, if spontaneous creation from nothing was true and that causality did not make sense in the quantum vacuum, then from a scientific perspective God could be out of the picture.”

Gods, deities, pixies, and fairies are all out of the question in science until it is supported by evidence. Causality as we understand it not being applicable wouldn’t rule out a deity as that isn’t what would rule out a deity from being used in a scientific explanation.

“But since causality is true and spontaneous creation out of nothing is false,”

With no basis on which to make that statement. For example, in normal physics, if you know the position of something, how much momentum it has, and velocity, you can predict where it will be, and you can know all of those without a problem. Meanwhile, when you get to the quantum scale, you get the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle, in which you can’t know with certainty the position or momentum simultaneously. The problem seems to be that Tzortzis took it from the perspective of regular physics.

“then we have a strong argument for the existence of God. Take the following premises into account,

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause

Since premises 1 and 2 are true, it logically follows that premise 3 is true. Everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore the universe must also have a cause. However, to believe that this cause is God can be perceived as a leap of faith rather than a rational conclusion, because this cause could have been a mechanical cause or necessary pre-existing conditions. In light of this how can we justify that this cause is a transcendent immaterial being?”

I’ve seen him present that argument, among others, and I’ve seen them shot down in real time. (Magic sandwich show, June 26, 2011). And I’ve seen that argument shot down time and time again. The hidden premises which theists attempt to use, the logical fallacies which are eventually used from those who’ve employed it, etc. If you need a reference for the argument which he is using and a thorough countering of it, feel free to read this if you don’t feel like watching a roughly two-three hour discussion (Iron Chariots – Counter Apologetics Wiki: Kalam Cosmological Argument).

“Using conceptual analysis, we can conclude that it must not be subject to time because it created time.”

Then using that same type of analysis, could you conclude that human beings must not be subject to bullets because people create them? The fact that you make something =/= not subject to the effects of it.

“ This cause must also be uncaused due to the absurdity of an infinite regress, if the cause of the universe had a cause, and that cause had a cause ad infinitum, then there wouldn’t be a universe to talk about in the first place!”

I’m just going to separate this from the rest so I can point out the issues with the next part.

“The cause of the universe must also be immaterial and beyond matter because it created the universe, and the universe is the sum of all matter. Significantly, this cause must have a will because since this cause is eternal, and it caused a finite effect, in other words the universe, then it must have chosen to do so, and choice indicates the existence of a will. Since this cause has a will it can interact and have relationships with personal agents, like human beings.”

None of this really follows from what has been presented so far.

1.)    “it created the universe” So he goes from cause, to created as the cause. If he wanted to make a stronger case, he could’ve said “it caused the universe to exist.”

2.)    “this cause must have a will since this cause is eternal, and caused a finite effect,” So I have to ask, on what basis does he make that statement?

3.)    “then it must have chosen to do so” You might think that would be the basis, but it isn’t, because it isn’t an inference which can be made on a sound basis.

“This analysis gives good reasons to believe in the Islamic concept of God, as the Qur’an – the book of the Muslims – eloquently summarises these points,”

That same analysis gives good reasons to believe the Greek, Hindu, Celtic, Aztec, Sumerian, Babylonian, Canaanite, Egyptian, among other concepts of gods, and entities which in the religion aren’t deities such as the Cree Earth Spirit O-Ma-ma-ma. It doesn’t give good reasons.
“Say: He is God, the One and Only! God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begets not nor is He begotten. And there is none like unto Him.”

To demonstrate what I mean.

The goddess Gaia from the Greek Neopagan religions

–          Not the only, but why this one is a necessity isn’t sufficiently indicated.

–          Eternal

–          Has children with other gods.

–          Children have relations with people, indicating the potential for Gaia to do the same
“In conclusion, it seems to me that the Professor has placed himself in a self-defeating position, because to claim something comes from nothing and that causality is not true at the quantum level would be tantamount to saying that his book The Grand Design was not written by him, rather it spontaneously appeared into existence without any cause, and came into being from nothing!”

As I said earlier, its a matter of scale, and which ones would be applicable.
“But we all know out of nothing, nothing comes. This is why the Professor seems to have contradicted himself by saying it was all possible because of gravity. Then I would like to kindly ask him, “where did gravity come from?” If he responds “from nothing”, well, I would rhetorically reply, “so did your book”.”

I find it funny how he refers to one person, and says if. I’d like to know, has Hamza attempted to ask Hawking, either through e-mailing his publisher or employer and asking them to forward the question to him, and have him reply in whatever method he feels fit. As a result, I’m taking it upon myself to do so to see the response he has to the first question, and to the rhetorical response. When I get back, I’ll type it up and sent it.
“Lastly, I must add that I am looking forward to reading the Professor’s book to find out what exactly he means by spontaneous causality and that the universe came into being from nothing, because for me it just doesn’t make any sense!…”

Things tend to not make sense when you don’t have the faintest understanding of them.

Link provided by Siru Arts who provided the statements I replied to.

http://hamzatzortzis.blogspot.com/2011/05/causality-time-quantum-vacuum.html

Where is the ban on unsupported assertions?

There are a few formatting issues which I’ve been trying to solve. Ignore them.

From a statement in the comment section of the article The Right to Remain Silent.

moosa on Sat, 17th Sep 2011 7:02 PM

Yameen, You seem to enjoying the joke!! Where is religious freedom? France (where hijab is banned)?? USA (where sworning to official post with Quran is banned)? Israel (where every muslim is a terrorist)?? DOnt joke pls!!
Religions have always been “used” coniviently by Politicials and power cirles!! And thus in Maldives. And your articles are echos of these elites and YOU ARE A PUPPET!!

I’m getting sick of people presenting what they think, while failing to have the slightest clue of what the situation is, and don’t even consider acknowledging that they are misinformed of the situation which they comment with so much passion. I’m going to comment on the few claims made in that post. Specifically,

–  It is illegal to wear a hijab in France

– Swearing to an official post with the Quran is banned in the United States

– That in Israel, every muslim is considered a terrorist

In regards to being illegal to wear a hijab in France, I doubt that the person who had made the comment had even read the law which was thought to have that as a direct result. So, what does the law in question actually say? Using the copy of it available here, I’ll provide what the law actually says.

Article 1

– No person in public is to wear clothing designed to cover the face.

Article 2

– For the purposes of Article 1, the public space is made up of public roads and places open to the public or assigned to a public service.

– The prohibition in Article 1 shall not apply if the holding prescribed or permitted by law or regulations, if justified by medical reasons or reasons professional, or if it is part of sports, from festivals or artistic or traditional.

Article 3

– Ignorance of the prohibition contained in Article 1 is punished the fine for offenses of the second class. The obligation to complete the citizenship course mentioned in 8 of Article 131-16 of the Penal Code may be imposed at the same time or instead of the fine.

Article 4

After section 1a of Chapter V of Title II of Book II of the Code Criminal is inserted a section 1 b reads:

“Section 1 b

“Forced to hide the face

“Art. 225-4-10. – The failure of any person or to impose a several other people to hide their faces by threat, violence, coercion, abuse of authority or abuse of power, because of their sex, is punished by imprisonment for one year and € 30 000 fine.” When the fact is committed against a minor, the penalties are increased to two years imprisonment and a fine of € 60 000. ”

Article 5

– Articles 1 to 3 come into force at the expiration of a period of six months from the date of enactment of this Act.

Article 6

– This Act applies throughout the territory of the Republic.

Article 7

– The Government submits to Parliament a report on the implementation of this Act eighteen months after its promulgation. This report provides an assessment of the implementation of this law, measures support developed by the government and the difficulties encountered.

Translation of the pdf format from French to English is available here.

So is it banned? Not entirely. One can still wear the Hijab in the comfort of their own home, in religious institutions, and in any space not covered under the description provided for public spaces. One is unable to force another to wear it on the basis of gender, meaning that should a woman decide to wear it, it is their choice to do so.

Now, I’m pretty certain that somebody will bring up that Paris has banned prayer in the streets, and that some muslim groups are upset about it. So, lets take a quick look at that, and what is being done about it.

Since I was unable to find the law in question, I’m going off of an article in the online newspaper, The Telegraph, entitled “Praying in Paris Streets Outlawed”, in which the statement

“Under an agreement signed this week, believers will be able to use the premises of a vast nearby fire station while awaiting the construction of a bigger mosque.”

appears.

So while Muslims happen to be impacted by the law, more so than any other religious demographic, there are also alternatives to the street being offered as places to pray, while construction of a larger mosque which should be able to accommodate the excess people who, likely as a result of space, find it necessary to pray in the streets. In the chance that it fails to do so, given the rate that mosques have been built in France over the last few years, with alternatives being provided in the meantime, I wouldn’t be inclined to worry about it.

In regards to “Swearing to an official post with the Quran is banned in the United States,” I had to look around for this one. The closest I could find was a controversy from 2006 which didn’t have the impact of preventing the politician involved, Keith Ellison, from swearing an oath on the Quran, or any other politician from doing the same. But I remain open to the possibility. Should anybody want to demonstrate the accuracy of the claim that it is illegal to swear to an official post with the Quran in the United States, I expect them to find the law that forbids that, and present it. Should somebody find a federal law which does that, I will have no qualms with including it, and updating this article to have it in this section. Just to make things interesting, should somebody find it by the end of 2011, I’ll provide a link to it before every section, with the name of the person who pointed it out included.

To be honest about my opinion, the whole “swearing an oath” on any book when taking a place of authority, it is worthless. People who are going to do good things with their authority are going to do them regardless of if they swore on a book, and people who are going to do bad things with their authority are going to do them regardless of if they swore on a book. Scrap the whole concept.

For the last comment I’ll address, “Israel (where every Muslim is a terrorist)??”, it was difficult to find any reference for that statistic from a reliable source, or even an unreliable source that at least had some data to back that up. The same offer as, with the condition that the source which supports the claim that every Muslim in Israel is a terrorist (I’ll take suspected at the very least), just to make it easy, be from the Israeli government, any intelligence agency with references, NGO that has investigated the situation in Israel and can refer to their data, or even from Wikileaks.

So lets see the conclusion. The first one was flat out wrong on account of the fact that women in France can still wear the hijab in their homes, or any place, as long as it isn’t designated as a public space. The second one is unsupported with an example to the contrary. The third one is unsupported. So Moosa, I don’t know who you are, but as an example of the many people who make similar claims, either provide references that if investigated, turn out to be correct, or acknowledge that your criticism of the nations you listed is unsupported.