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.)
[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.