The Five Lenses: 5 of 5, Human Rights versus Religious Tolerance

The Five Lenses: A Hindu Rebuttal to Ex-Muslims of North America and their Ex-Muslim Cohorts

Why I Decided to Write the Five Lenses

Table of Contents for The Five Lenses

1st Lens: Atheism

2nd Lens: Anecdotal Experience

3rd Lens: Secularism

4th Lens: Nietzschean Philosophy

5th Lens: Human Rights versus Religious Tolerance

Basically, my title immoralist involves two denials.  I first deny the type of man that has hitherto been regarded as the highest type— the good, the kind, and the charitable, and secondly, I deny that kind of morality which has come to be recognized and to dominate as morality itself— decadence morality or to use a still cruder term, Christian morality.  I would regard the second denial as the more decisive as the overestimation of the value of goodness and kindness seems to me already a consequence of decadence, as a symptom of weakness and incompatible with an ascending and affirmative life: denial and destruction are inseparable from an affirmative attitude towards life.—  Let me stay for a moment with the question of the psychology of the good man.  In order to determine the value of a certain type of man, the cost of maintaining him must be calculated— and for this the conditions of his existence must be known.  The condition of existence of the good is the lie— or to put it differently, the refusal at any price to see how reality is actually constituted, the refusal to see that this reality does not always give rise to benevolence, even less that it provides a constant justification for interference by short-sighted and good-natured hands.  To regard emergencies in general as an objection, as something which must be abolished, is the greatest nonsense on earth, having the most disastrous consequences, fatally stupid— almost as stupid as a wish to abolish bad weather— out of pity for the poor…  In the general economy of things the fearful aspects of reality (in terms of passions, desires, of the will to power) are incalculably more necessary than any form of petty happiness, so-called “goodness”, in fact, one must even consider whether it is worth giving it a place at all, seeing that it is based upon a falsification of the instincts.  I shall have an excellent opportunity of showing the incalculably calamitous consequences for the whole of history of optimism, this monstrous offspring of the homines optimi.  Zarathustra, the first to recognize that the optimist is just as degenerate as the pessimist and possibly more detrimental says: good men never speak the truth.  The Good preach of false shores and false security, you were born and bred in the lies of the good.  Through the good everything has become false and twisted down to the very roots.  Fortunately the world is not built solely to serve good-natured herd animals their little happiness, or to demand that everybody becomes a “good man”, herd animal, blue-eyed, benevolent, “beautiful soul”— or, as Herbert Spencer has it, altruistic— would mean robbing existence of its great character, to castrate mankind and reduce humanity to a sort of wretched Chinadom.—  And this some have tried to do!..  It is precisely this that men have called morality…  It is in this sense that Zarathustra calls the good at times “the last men” and at times ‘the beginning of the end”, above all he considers them as the most harmful kind of men, because they secure their existence at the expense of truth and at the expense of the future.  The good— they cannot create: they are always the beginning of the end— —they crucify him who writes new values on new law tables, they sacrifice the future to themselves, they crucify the whole future of humanity!  The good— they are always the beginning of the end… And whatever harm the slanderers of the world may do, the harm done by the good is the most harmful of all.” – Friedrich Nietzsche

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Ecce Homo (translated, unexpurgated) (Lexido Classic Texts) . Kindle Edition. For reference: Aphorism 4 of Chapter “Why I am a Destiny


Ex-Muslims of North America and their cohorts have led the charge in criticizing Islam in a humane way, but since then, I’ve found that many of them reject or ridicule non-Muslims who may have their own criticisms that don’t align with Ex-Muslim criticisms. Sometimes, it seems as if you need to be titled “Ex-Muslim” to have any of your views seem authentic when criticizing Islam or you’re simply labeled a bigot. I think a lot of this mentality went on when ridiculing Hindus who may have criticisms of Islam that don’t comport to the Ex-Muslim narrative. Even more confusing is that Ex-Muslims from the West, and even those in hiding in the Middle East from those I’ve had limited contact with, seem to be perfectly happy criticizing Islamic communities not adapting to Western societies or seeing Muslim bans as complex political issues that they either don’t have an opinion on or just ignore. For instance, who among any Ex-Muslim activist group has ever criticized Israel for refusing to accept Muslim refugees into their borders? Israel is largely seen as “culturally Western” and it seems that Ex-Muslims understand that the anti-Semitic bigotry among Muslim communities is a factor that holds them back from criticizing Israel. However, when Hindus of India share these same concerns – citing militia groups that slaughter Hindus in Myanmar or the general barbaric nature of Pakistani Muslims upon Pakistani Hindus and other religious minorities in Pakistan – then it is simply laughed off as angry, hateful Hindus who somehow have a nefarious political agenda for not allowing Muslims who make it clear that they want to murder as many Hindus as possible into their country. The human rights of Hindus in India has never registered as a serious issue of concern for many of these Ex-Muslim groups and their categorical refusal to acknowledge when Hindus in India are murdered by Islamic mobs, even among the recent Delhi riots, is proof enough that they don’t care about Hindu human rights but demand Hindus of India cater to Pakistani Islamic immigration while never expressing the same demands for their own societies in the West. Why does this blatant double-standard exist? The only conclusion I can really draw is that they’ve uncritically gulped the cultural narcissism of the West that censures non-Western civilizations for behaving exactly as they have behaved; also, I wouldn’t rule out the notion that this “Western Universalism” being imposed on people “over there” in foreign countries instead of demanding more from their own Western societies could negatively impact their own financial donations. Thereby, gaining monetary funds from people who presumably believe in Enlightenment Values in the abstract, but when asked to make personal sacrifices don’t bother to push for it because of all the legitimate problems that Muslim refugee emigration has brought to the West. As such, they may genuinely not care about the negative impacts of Muslim refugee emigration into India.

This brings me to the crux of this essay and something I’ve been cogitating over for many months; can we as a society truly say that we place trust in the enlightenment value of free thought and to the notion of truth while uncritically upholding the standard of religious tolerance? To be clear, I am not advocating for discriminatory laws against Muslims in Western societies. I merely want to open the question: can we truly be indifferent to religious values of the people that democratic societies choose to import? The ongoing crises that result from Muslim refugee immigration and the willful blindness of the Global Left to their problems indicates that we cannot. What really helps to continue perpetuating these problems isn’t merely “Political Correctness” that Right-wing groups accuse Left-leaning groups of upholding, but rather the unspoken Western notion of Religious Tolerance, whereby we refuse to criticize other people’s religious beliefs so long as they don’t criticize our own. Right-wing groups generally don’t see this issue for a variety of reasons, but Left-leaning people, and both Left and Right-wing Billionaires, have persistently resisted any attempt at opening the conversation about Islam’s problems to the point of promoting the neologism of Islamophobia which is honestly just a modern-day version of crying “blasphemy” for criticizing Islam. Islam is a set of ideas but the Western concept of Religious Tolerance prevents us from having any meaningful conversations about it and in India’s case, Religious Tolerance was set in place within its laws by British rule to cater to Islamist groups and the reason it has remained is because India simply doesn’t have the police security to deal with massive Islamic riots should anyone criticize the pedophile prophet of Islam. In effect, Religious Tolerance has been holding the Secular Republic of India hostage and has now successfully held Western civilizations hostage through efforts to shut down any meaningful criticism as motivated by some racist or bigoted agenda. At no point is anyone willing to acknowledge double-standards because of this unrealistic commitment to believing all religions share the same values and – at their core – are presumed to all have the same peaceful message. Religious Tolerance is a social norm of reciprocity whereby people of various faiths agree not to criticize other people’s religion so that their own isn’t open to criticism; at heart, it is an unspoken understanding of reciprocal concessions with the additional delusion that all religions have the same truths or good moral values anyway. This fundamental belief in the intrinsic goodness of religious beliefs is slowly transforming Secular Republics across the world into Islamic States. First, by implementing social norms refusing to criticize Islam, then by destroying the laws that protect the most vulnerable from Islam’s barbarity and making sure that they stick to create new norms for Islam to thrive. To understand the extent of this dangerous level of tolerance; I shared news articles about the US Court decision that ruled the law banning FGM as unconstitutional to people on my Facebook feed along with Ex-MNA videos to my Facebook feed, the result was people – Liberal Progressives who had worked alongside me in the Bernie Sanders campaign of 2016 – to unfriend and sometimes block me because they refused to criticize religion. The Progressive Liberals did not care about Ex-Muslim lives. Likewise, my sharing Atheist Republic and Ex-MNA videos with Liberal Progressives who made fan discords of the Vlogbrothers yielded the same result of deletion, banning, and also added the caveat that I was attempting to trigger Muslims. To be blunt, it seems clear to me that the majority of Liberal Progressives in the United States don’t care whether Ex-Muslims live or die so long as they can keep their notion of Religious Tolerance intact.

It seems ever more pressing and imperative to criticize the concept of Religious Tolerance. Right-wing communities and political groups in the West certainly don’t want to do it as they wish to protect Christianity from scrutiny while only criticizing Islam, but that leaves an enormous problem with no solution. Looking at Islamic civilizations and what they wish to turn the countries that have democracies into, should we not question where Religious Tolerance will lead democratic civilizations? If the Enlightenment value of Free Thought and Free Inquiry – the concept of questioning all ideas – is of primary importance, then why not the idea of questioning the value of Religious Tolerance? I genuinely fear that democratic societies have allowed special pleading arguments for religion to supersede the human rights of those that religion has harmed. To protect Religious Tolerance has come to mean protecting the make-believe ideas in people’s minds over the horrendous abuses that those ideas engender upon other people. In effect, this would also call into question the UN Declaration of Human Rights because certain religious beliefs cause so many abuses such as rape and torture that it seems necessary that we rethink the priorities of just what we’re calling to defend; can we really defend make-believe that hurts other people and the safety of people equally? Even when abuses like FGM occur, Western mass media promulgates a narrative falsehood that Islam didn’t influence parents and grandparents to cut a piece of the clitoris off their newborn daughters when it is required in the Shafi’i school of Islam.

I want to be clear that what initially drove my questioning of Religious Tolerance wasn’t Islam at all. The focus of applying this questioning to Islam grew from Ex-MNA’s own uncritical assumption of the Western notion of Religious Tolerance. What first began my questioning of the Western concept of Religious Tolerance was the global rape epidemic in Catholic Churches. I had taken the time to document some of them in this lengthy video. For a fuller context, please just take a look at how massive this child rape epidemic and protection of child rapists have been roughly between the years of 1949 – 2013 for the majority of these allegations and verified cases that overwhelmingly occurred because the Catholic Church hid and moved around child rapists throughout the world in their congregations:

 UK Birmingham Archdiocese permissive attitude towards pedophile priests:

2 of UK’s leading Catholic Schools have culture of acceptance of sexual abuse of children:

German Catholic Churches cover-up of Child Rape Crimes:

7 Percent of Australia’s Catholic Priests accused of sexually abusing children:

Chilean child rape scandal by Catholic Church:

Dutch Catholic Church’s widespread cover-up of child rape and abuse for over 65 years:–up

Endemic rape and abuse of children in Catholic Church care within Ireland:

Rape Crimes in Catholic Orphanages in Ireland:

Child Rape of Dead and Mute Boys in Catholic Church run Deaf and Mute School:

Catholic Bishop raped Nun 13 times in India and then the Catholic Church ordered the Nun who initially spoke out to be silent:

Physical and Sexual abuse of Native American children at Catholic Residential schools in Canada:

US Catholic Church cases of the Rape and Abuse of children:

200 Deaf Boys raped in Wisconsin by Milwaukee Archdiocese:

Montana’s Native American Reservations were “dumping grounds” for pedophile priests:

Texas child abuse by pedophile Catholic Priests:

West Virginia Lawsuit over pedophile Catholic Priests:

Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report on Pedophile Priests:

Rape and abuse of children in Minnesota by Catholic Nuns:

Sexual violence against children in Catholic schools in New Jersey:

Vermont Child Abuse at St. Joseph’s Catholic Orphanage:

What happened in Native American Boarding Schools:

Actions by the Catholic Church in Chronological Order:

2017: They Quietly Trimmed Sanctions on Child Rapists:

August 2018:

Catholic Church paid out nearly $4 billion of its donated money over allegations of child rape and other abuses by pedophile priests:

Australia Catholic Church Rejected Calls for Priests to report Child Rapists to go to the police due to the Seal of Confession as part of their faith in Jesus Christ:

November 2018: Vatican used their authority to stop US bishops from voting on reforms for Catholic Churches in the US:

December 2018, Pope Francis makes a speech about how Clerics should hand themselves in, but no steps for reform are made:

February 2019, German Cardinal Reinhard Marx admits that documents pertaining to child rape and other forms of child abuse by Catholic clergy were destroyed, tampered with, or never made:

June 2019: Catholic Church spent $10 million on lobbyists to prevent victims of child rape and other sexual abuses to sue the Catholic Church by reforming the Statue of Limitations in the US:

Contrary to popular beliefs of some Catholics, this didn’t start because of the Second Vatican Council, there are historic cases of the barbaric Goa Inquisition in India and the general rape and butchery of Native Americans. Not to mention the official Catholic position of neutrality towards the Holocaust so they could agree with whichever winning side representing the “true nature” of Catholicism. The point being that the belief in Catholicism engendering rape and other horrors is not new nor newly caused by the Second Vatican Council. The barbarity has always been part of Catholicism.

The evidence that the Catholic Church moves around child rapists from parish to parish, works to protect itself from lawsuits from aggrieved victims who were raped as children, works to make sure that records of victimhood are destroyed, systematically tries to wait until Statue of Limitations are reached until revealing that child rapes occurred, works against the child rape victims to protect themselves from lawsuits, and has been doing such heinous actions for over 64 years are all statements of fact. Let me put it more blunt and concisely: preaching the religion of Catholicism across the world will inevitably lead to more child rape victims. Therefore, upholding the value of Religious Tolerance is placing more importance on respecting ye olde make-believe than keeping children safe from harm. Religious Tolerance is essentially just a special pleading argument to protect make-believe; if the Catholic Church were just a corporation or a non-profit then it would have been shut down for all the child rape scandals. Instead, despite several decades worth of horrific scandals where children were raped by an institution purportedly teaching good moral behavior, it seems that people just wish to bury it with a selective case of amnesia whenever possible. Even after such overwhelming evidence of successive betrayals on keeping children safe, the reaction by Catholics has been to label child rape as no different than any other sin and that even child rape victims must somehow repent because everyone is a sinner. When scrolling across Netflix, I noticed a documentary about two Popes with the target audience being meant for children, evidently to show them the wholesome conversations between two Popes. Across the internet, it seems Left-leaning theists are keen to shut down any conversation about the crises of child rape that are endemic in the Catholic Church by arguing anyone criticizing the Catholic Church has some nefarious “political agenda” or is being a bigot against Catholics. For a moment, I began to wonder, is all that is required to get the Left-leaning half of the globe to protect and defend a religious faith as intrinsically peaceful is to have someone of that religion commit a heinous act that hurts hundreds or thousands of people? Because that is how stupid Religious Tolerance seems to be making people for the sake of declaring all religions peaceful, tolerant, and innately tied to moral goodness despite all logic and reason showing that these different forms of make-believe from very different parts of the world don’t behave the same and can’t be treated the same. Religious Tolerance has become synonymous with willful ignorance at the expense of the safety and security of those that society claims to wish to protect the most. Even having conversations on this matter seems to shift the blame to successful cultures like Japan in order for purported defenders of social justice to blame and exert their xenophobia upon cultures dubbed “foreign” while ignoring rape epidemics in their own Western or South American countries as a result of blind faith in Catholicism.

Comparatively, Islam has these problems and more so on the level of entire civilizations, yet they’re not called out because Western countries seem to hold Islamic countries to much lower standards likely because the West’s first priority is securing oil wealth and having countries that support cheap labor to keep the price of oil as low as possible benefits everyone in the world since the price of gas would skyrocket should economic reforms be made in the Middle East. Nevertheless, this doesn’t preclude social reforms. In the case of non-oil rich Islamic countries, there is failure to reform after the worst abuses in their societies.  Instead of highlighting these abuses such as in Pakistan, Western news organizations have chosen to use softer tones for what are ongoing rape sprees to coerce underage girls to convert to Islam in Islamic countries by calling them “forced conversions” while harshly criticizing India and forming isolated and unknown committees deeming India the worst place to be for women, even when the Syrian war had been raging at the time. It is worth noting that India’s rape statistics are still lower than the US thus far, even as Indian women thankfully gain more confidence to go to the police about alleged crimes. This gutless attitude by the Western mass media over choosing softened tones for Islamic societies seems to warrant further scrutiny. The “forced conversions” of Islamic civilizations may not be different from grooming gangs that have repeatedly been revealed as ongoing problems in European societies which the Western mass media refuses to place blame on Islam for. As astonishing as it may sound, these grooming gangs have historical precedent for how Islam proliferated and became so widespread in India itself; Islam didn’t gain a large portion of Muslim adherents in India from mass conversions or Arab traders (such tales are generally myths), the history of Islam’s spread comes from Muslim warlords and soldiers taking unmarried young girls hostage, raping them, and forcing them to become Muslim. The practice of rape conversions, referred to as forced conversions by the Western mass media, is a thousand years old:

Origin and causes of child marriage[edit]

New York Times report and scholars say the origin of child marriages in India to be the Muslim invasions that began more than 1,000 years ago. Invaders raped unmarried Hindu girls or carried them off as booty, prompting Hindu communities to marry off their daughters almost from birth to protect them.[15][16][17] Others suggest child marriages were common everywhere in the world before the 19th century.[18]

At the time of the Delhi Sultanate, political atmosphere was turbulent and ruled by Muslim Sultans in an absolute monarchy government. During this period the Sultans produced practices such as child marriage and had lowered the status of women even further.[19][20]

Dharmaśāstra (Dharmasutras) state that girl should be married after they have attained puberty.[21] In Manusmriti, a father is considered to have wronged his daughter if he fails to marry her before puberty and if the girl is not married under 3 years of reaching puberty, she can search for the husband herself. Medhātithi‘s Bhashya states the right age for marriage of a girl is eight-years-old, this can also be deduced from Manusmriti. According to the Tolkāppiyam, a boy should be married before he is sixteen-years-old and a girl before she is twelve. The Greek historian Megasthenes though talks about early puberty of girls in South India. According to Edgar Thurston, in South India a candlelight ceremony was held for girls (vilakiddu kaliyanam) from seven to nine years, likely later, but always prior to the marriage. Allan Dahlaquist states this is evidently a puberty ceremony before marriage which may explain Megasthenes’ comments.[22]

(Bold Emphasis added by me

Will Durant has also mentioned this very cultural tradition of kidnapping and raping little girls from Dharmic families by Muslim men to forcibly convert them into Islam as being a reason for why child marriage proliferated as a defense against Muslim men doing it since Quran 4:24 technically forbids married women from being kidnapped, raped, and converted into Islam. It is important to note that the Arthashastra, a document of legal customs estimated to have been created approximately around 100 AD which is much later than the ones mentioned above and which is conveniently ignored in the Wiki, has women required to be age 13 and men to be age 16. It certainly isn’t up to modern standards, but it wasn’t child marriages of children 6 – 9 as became the social norm across India under Islamic rule due to Muslim beliefs that Islam was more rational and modern than Dharmic faith traditions and Islamic child marriages seen as “modernizing” India in the ancient Muslim mind. Therefore, likely in the ancient Muslim mind, raping little girls to forcibly convert them was thereby perceived as doing them a favor since they wouldn’t burn in hell. It is unlikely this belief in Islamic societies has changed given that “grooming gangs” in the West, “forced conversions” in Pakistan, and lack of meaningful laws to punish rape in other Islamic countries are just the longstanding and brutal cultural traditions of Islam continuing unimpeded for over a thousand years. Add Female Genital Mutilation, domestic violence against women, whippings and other forms of Islamic torture, demanding the enforcement of gender segregation in Western countries, and the capitulation of Western societies to the term “Islamophobia” which is borne out of Islam’s Tafsir system (interpretation) which demands that no non-Muslim has any right to an opinion on Islam and we have serious social problems as a result of thousands of years of continued Islamic cultural history. All the while, even when questioning and criticizing Islam, we must respect it as equally as any other religious tradition and regard them all as morally and socially equivalent despite the overwhelming facts to the contrary because the Western norm of Religious Tolerance takes paramount importance.

All this isn’t even mentioning Ghazwar al Hind, the religious decree by the illiterate, pedophile warlord and Prophet of Islam that serves as a decree of jihad to slaughter all Dharmic faith practitioners and even non-Dharmic faith practitioners in India (although, modern Muslims from places like Pakistan generally see it as a religious duty to kill Dharmic faith practitioners in particular). We’re living in an era where Pakistan was carved out of India as a territory and where Afghanistan use to be majority Buddhist and Hindu with Greek influences only to face mass slaughter and rape conversions throughout its history. Looking through Asia with more scrutiny, it is also where the Dharmic faiths in Maldives, Malaysia, and Indonesia had all their Dharmic faiths vanish during Islamic military occupations which made sure to destroy all historical records of what happened so that there’s very little to explain how Islam took over those formerly Dharmic civilizations. The discrimination and violence against Dharmic practitioners still living there likewise don’t gain as much scrutiny in the Western news media. Indonesia had a similar repeat event during its genocide of Communists for the crime of atheism, which it took great pains to erase the history of from their own country with the help of the US government and CIA which still protects war criminals from facing crimes against humanity. Yet, despite all this, India must accept Muslim refugees due to Religious Tolerance, even when the US has bans on certain Muslim-majority countries and Israel steadfastly refused to? The level of danger and power imbalance simply isn’t taken seriously due to notions of Religious Tolerance.

However, in particular to Ex-Muslims of North America and their cohorts, I’d like to point out that all these Islamic countries have failed to truly be pushed back by Free Speech and criticism. The argument instead has been Twitter and other social media platforms catering to punishing “Islamophobia” and Ex-Muslim groups needing to go in circles with appeal after appeal. What has this really amounted to? Pakistan’s inclusion into Twitter used threats and intimidation tactics, at one point Twitter tried switching Pakistan lodging legal threats to Western audiences with Great Britain lodging legal injunctions, to the fury of British Twitter users who rejected the authenticity of what Twitter was claiming. Some Ex-Muslims might credibly argue that allowing some concessions in order to keep Pakistani Muslims on Twitter so that they gain different perspectives opposed to Islam in a gentler sense is useful, but having looked at how the Twitter firestorm went down, I don’t believe that this works at all. Twitter was willing to give info on people criticizing Islam within Islamic countries to authorities of those Islamic countries and jail people for years for thought crimes. Ex-Muslim content was being shadowbanned, edited out of Muslim filters, and there was briefly an attempt at shutting down the accounts of Saudi Asylum seekers who risked death to gain freedom. Giving concessions to allow people from Islamic countries onto social media platforms led to no effective means of communicating ideas. Can any war of ideas truly be possible, if entire civilizations are refusing to engage? Looking at the recent evidence, I doubt it. I’ve since concluded that the marketplace of ideas is a myth.

Ex-Muslims from Islamic countries are probably more akin to a small percentage at the margins of Islamic civilizations and those small percentages aren’t creating a domino effect necessary to reshape the landscape and rid the world of Islam. Meanwhile, countries like Pakistan gang rape and rape approximately 1000 little girls a year and force them to submit to Islam. A handful of Ex-Muslims leaving Islamic civilizations verses rape conversions seems to give the advantage to Islamic brutality. In the US, the most pro-Free Speech Western country in the world, Islam loses as many adherents as it gains and this annual cycle hasn’t seemed to tip in favor of people leaving Islam. Instead Muslim communities are growing and becoming highly politically active even in the US. It is great, genuinely great, that Ex-MNA has normalized Ex-Muslims within Muslim communities in the US. I don’t want to be discouraging all the effort and work that they put in towards that, but I don’t see how that is translating toward the macro level of just ending these barbaric superstitions and I don’t believe that more Islamic immigration on the basis of humanitarian help can be justified if it leads to destabilizing and destroying the norms of Free Speech and Free Thought. On a global scale, Islamic violence seems to supersede any ability for Free Speech to flourish and on a Western scale, Islamic political groups seem to successfully shut down criticism of Islam with the help of the Western mass media. Even worse, Western academics are denying Islam’s historic genocides in places like India or editing them out and it’s likely because of their strong belief in Religious Tolerance.

In conclusion, Religious Tolerance is patronizing, contemptuous, and creates an illusion of equality among religions which ignores their theologies, histories, and the proportions of their ongoing human rights crimes to label it all as “equal” in defiance of all facts and evidence shown in reality. It labels any person criticizing religion as a bigot and shutting them down without listening to their arguments – an act of actual bigotry as per the definition of the term. Criticizing harmful ideas is failing even in the case of Catholicism where there is no rational self-interest left to protect. Even in the case of India, despite everything I’ve shared in these litany of rebuttals, India still can’t criticize Islam due to Western notions of Religious Tolerance being codified into their laws and the lack of police security against violence from Muslims over thought crimes. Therefore, given the legacy of Islam that the West has absolutely failed to challenge and instead has largely chosen to kowtow to despite facts and evidence, India pushing for a third way which doesn’t follow Western standards, which the US and Israel doesn’t even follow, is the best outcome over what is an insane level of circumstances stacked against the Secular Republic of India, Dharmic followers who are citizens of India, and even some non-Dharmic citizens of India. The West has collectively failed to challenge Islam with Enlightenment values, failed to ever criticize Islam for barbaric practices like FGM, and still refuses to and rejects its own cultural legacy in favor of Religious Tolerance. India and Israel’s paths seem like the best solution thus far; Islamic societies cannot get to dictate when non-Muslim societies get to open their borders because of a dangerous make-believe fantasy being respected due to Western cultural norms that are leading to toxic outcomes and destabilizing Western locales already. We can’t even have a conversation about this in the West. In a similar fashion of Religious Tolerance superseding the human rights of child rape victims of the Catholic Church, Religious Tolerance for immigration is leading to the destabilization and breakdown of Secular societies from social norms to personal safety. The lives of Muslims and even Ex-Muslim refugees and asylum seekers cannot take more prominence than the lives non-Muslims of the countries they’re trying to enter. That isn’t defending human rights equally for all people, it’s just endangering non-Muslims whose goodwill is being exploited for the purposes of Islamizing the non-Muslim world. Therefore, so long as the Global Left refuses to have any meaningful conversation on the problems of Islam and rejects any criticism of Islam as Islamophobia, then this can’t continue at all because it is labeling the term “bigot” towards anyone who has criticisms of Islam as a way of proclaiming them guilty until proven innocent instead of having a rational conversation on the threats that Islam poses. Even some segments of Western academia refuse to have conversations about this issue and would rather destroy their own credibility regarding the history of Islam than point out its barbarity. Religious Tolerance will be the death of us all and it is leading to the breakdown of non-Islamic societies.

3/30/20: As an addendum, and to better understand the global nature of Anti-Hindu bigotry that Ex-Muslims have, look at what happens when you share these concerns with Ex-Muslims of India, on a forum claiming they’re open to criticizing ideas (except Hindutva which is banned to even discuss) and share criticism as a Hindu on Ex-Muslim content while not advocating for Hindutva. Look at how “open to criticism” Ex-Muslims are globally in their very forums claiming to be open to criticism. This is more reason for why Hindus should choose indifference:


2 thoughts on “The Five Lenses: 5 of 5, Human Rights versus Religious Tolerance

  1. Pingback: The Lack of Professionalism of Secular Jihadist Co-hosts Armin Navabi and Ali A. Rizvi | Jarin Jove's Blog

  2. Pingback: The Five Lenses: 4 of 5, Noble and Decadent Morality | Jarin Jove's Blog

Leave a Reply