Can A Religion Be Abject?

Are there abject religions? Yes, of course. Their annihilation, or domestication, describe the progress of civilization. 99% of the known religion were rejected, or outlawed, because, precisely, they were abject. Is there an objective criterion to find out if a religion is abject? Of course. The Romans, who launched our civilization, or, at least, our legal system, taught us that a religion is abject, and should be made unlawful, when it practices human sacrifices. Let’s outlaw religions clamoring for human sacrifices! Our ancestors did, let’s heed their example!

Rome, invaded and occupied by a Gallic tribe, or others, sacrificed of a couple or two. The Romans, though, were ashamed by what they had done. Human sacrifice was formally outlawed by senatorial decree in 97 BCE under the consulship of P. Licinius Crassus.

The Romans accused Carthage of killing children. Thus Romans acquired moral superiority on Carthage which created a mood conducive to the annihilation of that civilization. (Whether Carthage sacrificed children is still researched; archeological evidence points to the correctness of the Roman descriptions.)

Aztecs’ Description Of Paris, November 13, 2015: Jihadist Sacrificing Gourmet

Aztecs’ Description Of Paris, November 13, 2015: Jihadist Sacrificing Gourmet

[Codex Laud, folio 8.]

The Romans prohibited human sacrifices by the peoples they conquered (and used human sacrifices as a justification to conquer them). Romans advertised human sacrifices  as barbaric.

Outlawing them distinguished civilization from barbarity, said Rome. Rome was also critical of Greek mythology for celebrating human sacrifices in disguise, and that refined intellectual critique helped promote the switch to Christianism…

The same mood, of revulsion to human sacrifices, presided over the annihilation of the Aztecs.

The mood of being horrified by human sacrifices originated in Rome. However, human sacrifices were practiced in disguise for centuries (by gladiators’ deaths and the occasional sacrificed Vestal as happened once under emperor Domitian, as the chief Vestal having had sex).

Our civilization is Rome Renovated (as the Franks proclaimed in 800 CE). And the next question is: is there any religion today which practices human sacrifices?

Some have tried to deny that any religion practiced human sacrifices. Maybe because of the natural question:

Does Islam Practices Human Sacrifices In Disguise?

When a religion organizes human sacrifices, it orders to kill some particular individuals, under some circumstances. As Wikipedia says: Human sacrifice is the act of killing one or more human beings, usually as an offering to a deity, as part of a religious ritual. Human sacrifice has been practiced in various cultures throughout history.”

Is there, today, a religion which orders to kill other people and claims that those who kill other people go to paradise? Of course there is.

A religion which orders to kill “apostates”, “unbelievers”, “pagans”, “idolaters” of food, music and the good life in general, consists in practicing human sacrifices in disguise. Or, actually, come to think of it, not in disguise at all, but full view. The emperor wear no clothes, He is just drenched in blood. Islam also punishes homosexuals by stoning, to death (on the ground that this is the punishment in the Bible), “Adulterous” women get the same treatment: stoning by a crowd practicing human sacrifice.

LOL, Muslims, why don’t you call all your stoning, stoning, crucifixion, and whipping to death, human sacrifices?

So why is it lawful? Maybe I should ask the question in reverse: is (Literal, Salafist, Wahhabist) Islam lawful because it was not pointed out that all its most troubling practices amount to human sacrifices? Let’s point out, that’s what thinking is all about. And a last question: are those who promote Islam, thus the Qur’an, as Obama had done, promoting what is inside the Qur’an, namely the orders from God detailing when and when the believers are to engage in human sacrifices? And if not, why not?

Tip for anti-terrorism: stop calling them monsters “suicide bombers” or “Jihadists”. Call them what they are: human sacrificers.

But then, of course, one will have to overcome first the mood that simply describing the Qur’an in its own words is racism, as the Common (Plutocratic, Democracy-Destroying) Mood has it. Can reality be racist? This whiff of realism could well end up with the wealthiest paying 93% tax, as they did under Republican president Eisenhower, lest the realistic mood takes over, and various superstitions squirm back to the unspeakable shadows they should have never left.

Patrice Ayme’


Tags: , , , , , , ,

11 Responses to “Can A Religion Be Abject?”

  1. Gmax Says:

    Gourmets in Paris have a richer texture, an aroma of bon vivant much appreciated by connoisseurs. Their pain is a delicacy

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      As Kevin (I think) pointed out, these “Jihadists” are not true suicides, because they want to live forever, cuddling with “God”. Once next to their big Dog in the sky, they are happy. So what they are after is not killing people because they appreciate their flesh (as Aztecs did), but because they are just tickets to Paradise. It’s baser than base…

  2. Chris Snuggs Says:

    ‘One will have to overcome first the mood that simply describing the Qur’an in its own words is racism. Can reality be racist?’
    Chris Snuggs: A) ISLAM is not a race and so criticising ISLAM in ANY way cannot be racist.

    B) Given the nature of the Koran, criticising it can only be described as logical.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Agreed on both, It’s a testimony to the idiocy of our intellectual pretended “leaders” that we have to stoop so low as actually having to point out how dumb they are.

  3. dominique deux Says:

    There have been fairly recent examples of religions OR religious practices being made unlawful because of their atrociousness. The Thug cult of Kali was more or less eradicated by the British occupiers of India. On the other hand, the Hinduist practice of suttee (widow-burning) was outlawed too (although the British were quite late to come after it, whereas French-occuped India was subjected much earlier to that kind of non-PC Western intolerance) but Hinduism as a whole was left alone. Purdah (female imprisonment for life) still thrives in Islamic countries, despite its pre-Muslim origin (shared with Hinduism).
    My point? responses to religious atrocities can be varied and adjusted. Eradication of a faith may not be the one and only appropriate response.
    To this day, religious human sacrifice is alive and well in many parts of Africa. Neither the colonizer nor the current elites saw its eradication as a priority, treating its visible manifestations under common criminal law (if at all).

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Agreed to all. For the record, I am all for Black, Senegalese type Islam I have known in my childhood (now it is greatly taken over by well financed Salafism, and the latter should be ERADICATED). Modifying and mitigating old religions is kosher. Integral veil should be made unlawful in France (bikers can be recognized by their license plates; or then integrally covered women should be made to wear license plates, back and front…)

    • Gmax Says:

      What’s awesome with Islam is that much of the Koran is hate litt 101. It’s like a parody of hate crime litany, and nobody seems to have noticed, short of Patrice

  4. David Beck Says:

    Forgive me, Mr. Ayme, but your premise is incorrect. No worries, most everyone makes the same mistake. The reality is every religion requires human sacrifice. Furthermore, since everyone is religious — even the most ferocious atheist — everyone does human sacrifice as a matter of regular practice. We’ve been taught that only Aztec-types who cut out POW’s hearts are human sacrificers. Truthfully, anyone who appropriates the value of another in any way, regardless of the time it takes, is doing human sacrifice. This is why the law is so prevalent throughout every institution, precisely for the reasons you address. Indeed, all religion is “outlawed” in some way — no wonder so many churches are 501c3’s. They habitually do human sacrifice, and require that law to govern their affairs. The only antidote to this is Jesus Christ, who already took the human sacrifice needed to allow one to enter His presence. He is the complete fulfillment of that law by life-giving love, and introduces Himself beyond the law as Truth and Grace. Thank you for allowing me to share in your forum.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Jesus! Every religion “requires human sacrifice”? Can you show me where Buddhism requires human sacrifice? Or Confucianism? Or Taoism? Or Republican Secularism? I use the most general definition of religion: what ties People together again. So in particular loving the Republic is a religion.

      It’s true that Christianism has human sacrifice front and center. It feasts and get drunk on it.

      It’s also true that Christianism, from the late 11th Century to the 1700s -1850s (depending upon the European countries concerned, from Britain to Spain…) was abject: it killed tens of millions, in a succession of “crusades” and religious wars. That “appropriation” is human sacrifice is an interesting idea, I have entertained it myself. But saying everybody does it is not correct: first of all, VICTIMS don’t do it. Anyway good luck to you and “Jesus”, “He” is going to need it… But, since he invited me to devour Him and drink His blood, no doubt a few acerbic critiques won’t affect him much, once He sits in my stomach…

      Oh, BTW, how do you explain Jesus wants to kill people? he got drunk on his own spirit of sacrifice, and applied it to others?

  5. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Published on Massimo P’s “How to be a stoic”.]

    One can also get confused by smells. The anti-communist hysteria of 65 years ago inside the USA was inexcusable, and the start of something even worse we experience presently, in a more insidious, thus more efficient form. Indeed.

    However Salafism’s explicit calls to murder as a religion is unparalleled, even in the most extreme hard-core “Communist” ideologies (at least on paper). Even the Khmer Rouges’s ideology, although mass murdering on an astounding scale, was not calling for mass murder. Salafism does.

    Salafism, on the face of it, calls for murdering most of humanity. And that is why the French Republic got the immediate, unanimous approval to eradicate the Islamist State at the United Nation Security Council.

    Most of the victim of the madness of anti-communism espoused ideals completely opposed to those of Salafism on the most important axioms. Comparing their struggle with that of the partisan of literal, old fashion (“Salafist”) Islam would have revolted most of them.

  6. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to NYT, Dec 5, 2015.]

    The root of the problem is inside the Qur’an. Some of the Qur’an is very good, however, hundreds of verses seem, clearly, to prone violence. That violence seems, literally, to go all the way to presenting the killing of many categories of people as orders from God. Killing people of these categories, including “unbelievers”, “pagans”, “idolaters”, homosexuals, “apostates”, etc. insures, say the Hadith, as clearly as possible, a direct access to paradise.

    Thus an entire system of thought in Islam solves all existential angst… by suggesting to kill those categories. However, those categories of people are protected by the United Nation charter (mostly) and certainly the constitutions of all democracies. For direct quotes from the Qur’an, see:

    Some add disingenuously, why worry about these attacks? Well, Islamist terror is having much more of an economic and social impact than the 200,000 random murders since 9/11.

    Another thing: the article brazenly asserts that Muslims are less well integrated in Europe, and implies that is the cause of their State of violent Islamism. However, most of the six million Muslims in France alone are integrated well enough, and not planning to become jihadists. The ringleader from Belgium, and others in his group, like some of the London attackers, a few years back, were actually from economically very successful families (restaurant owners, etc.)

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: