R.T. Naylor: "There really is no relationship between al-Qaeda and the Afghan opium trade, nor is there evidence of such an organisation having existed in Afghanistan at any time". That is because al-Qaeda itself does not exist, except in the imaginations of neo-cons, who, I suspect also know it is a myth, but find it extremely useful as a bogeyman to spook the public and the politicians to acquiescing in otherwise unacceptable policy initiatives at home and abroad. By those terms, al-Qaeda is cast like "the Mafia" and similar nonsense – its easier for the public to understand our enemy if we can give it a name.




To many it is apparent al-Qaeda does not exist and never has. Google it, you won't find anymention of such an organisation before 2001. Al-Qaeda is a manufactured enemy who was created by the Bush Administration in order, according to some, to have an excuse to wage a war for the control of the world's oil resources.
Ask yourself, did you even hear the words "Al Qaeda" before 9-11?


Al-Qaeda and Iraq

The question of Iraqi links to ‘al-Qaeda’ remains murky, although senior Bush administration officials insist such ties exist… many experts and State Department officials note that any al-Qaeda presence in Iraq probably lay in northern regions that were beyond Saddam’s control. Many experts say there is scant evidence of ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq, noting that al-Qaeda’s loathing for "impious" Arab governments makes it an unlikely bedfellow for Saddam’s secular regime."

The Myth of the ‘God Cult’
You have 10 followers, you have a cult; you have 10 million, you have a religion. That doesn’t make it more irrational or extreme, its just more people. Religion has been described by one eminent philosopher as a “process of non-thinking called faith”.




Scientific Truth vs. Religious Truth
I find it astounding that, at a time when global society has dived headlong into the ‘Information Age’, religious faith is actually on the upswing, despite the world’s growing awareness of rational, scientific truth.

Science, which by definition is based on scepticism, must endure extremes of investigation and evidence procurement, continuously testing its own concepts and claims. Faith, on the other hand, exists in juxtaposition with evidence: it a ‘belief system’ nothing more nothing less, and is therefore the polar opposite of science.
Furthermore, though religions preach morality, peace and hope, in reality, they bring intolerance, violence and destruction. The growth of extreme fundamentalism in so many religions across the world (and you only have to go to the US mid-west to recognise that this is not a purely Islamic problem) not only endangers humanity but is in direct conflict with the trend over thousands of years of history for humanity to progress – to become more enlightened and more tolerant.




The Least Enlightened People in The World
Consider those involved in the terminal conflict over what is called the ‘Holy Land’. The eternal clash of Abraham’s three quarrelsome children (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) is symbolic of organised religion's threat to rational values and civilisation. Nowhere in the world better outlines the process by which the irrational roots of modern religious thought are providing succor to intolerance, inhumanity and murder.

Further, we can investigate the political power of the powerful Christian fundamentalist groups who lobby and to some degree finance the US Congress like the frighteningly charismatic leader of America's National Association of Evangelicals, who believes he has been chosen by God to convert Americans through religious gatherings that resemble rock concerts or perhaps the Nuremberg rallies.
Then there are the desperate, like those carrying burdens of disability or disease, who are among the thousands of people a year who make the pilgrimage to Lourdes. According to Professor Richard Dawkins, “out of the millions who, over a century, have placed their faith in a miracle restoring them to good health, there have been only 66 authenticated cures.” (All psychological?) This is hardly a strong record, he says, arguing that it is better for us to embrace truth than false hope”.




The Club Mentality
Drawing on such examples, it is not difficult to demolish the claims of religion as nothing more than fairytales, and dangerous ones at that. But there is more to religion than ancient stories and articles of faith. Like football fans or collectors clubs, the sense of belonging promised by religious groups is a significant force, one which is capable of producing strong feelings of unity and emotional wellbeing. However, unlike these other organisations, to members of religious groups this emotional comfort becomes confused with the spiritual health. Consequently, these feelings of faith may be dismissed as seductive group solidarity, a shared delusion.

Looked at in this light, it is less challenging to consider how religions and religious traditions become intertwined with people's ideas of 'community', 'history' and 'identity'.


We all need to feel like we’re a part of something, it helps us to find our place in the world, gives us our identity. Now consider how much greater is the pressure on minorities, the oppressed, those under extreme economic, political or military pressure to develop a sense of ‘belonging’. Having a sense of one's place in the world is important to everyone but has particular significance for minorities and peoples under political, economic or military pressure. When your faith the backbone of everything you hold dear, when it’s the one thing that allows you to make sense of a cruel and irrational world, you’ll defend it to the end – even if (ironically) that means giving your life.


Faith as a Weapon
There have been a great many cases throughout history where religion was used as a tool of oppression. Karl Marx famous proclaimed that ‘religion is the opiate of the masses’, whereby Christianity in particular was utilized by the powers-that-be to maintain the status quo. There is also the more sinister context in which faith is specifically constructed to enhance subjugation.

A key example of this may be seen from the perspective of 17th and 18th century slavery. The vigor with which Christianity was thrust upon slaves by their white owners seems out of touch with their belief that Africans were ‘sub-human’ until you realise that these mass-conversions were carried out through economic, rather than spiritual necessity. Surely the logical thing for the slaves to do, given the wretched conditions in which they lived, was to resist. However, the perceived consequence was that such an act would result in eternal damnation and as a result, insurrection was rare.


The Unenlightened Enlightened
Then there is another sector, specific to the western world. That being those who accept the logical deconstruction of the scientific argument, at least theoretically, but maintain their faith because ‘there has to be something out there, doesn’t there?’ These individuals may even accept the logical deconstruction of the ‘myths’ they grew up with but still feel the need to defend the complex maze of institutions, practices and relationships which, they feel, make them who they are.


Whatever your standpoint, it is always important to question everything. Having done so, I would argue that you will be left with the only possible conclusion – that the very groundrock beneath all relligions is nothing more than a delusion.


Prove me wrong……please!



For further reading on this and related subjects, I recommend the writings of Professor Richard Dawkins

Back a few months ago, Dr. James Randi noted that the US administration chose to support a dangerous and vindictive “religion,” L. Ron Hubbard’s “Scientology” farce. Margarita Lopez, a Manhattan, New York, council member successfully lobbied for $630,000 in funding of a controversial Scientology “medical treatment” for a couple of rescue workers who worked on the 9/11 disaster. Well it turns out that - surprise, surprise, she has received nearly $100,000 in her political campaign account from Hubbard followers.

The “New York Rescue Workers Detoxification Project,” which based its “therapy” on Hubbard’s book, "Clear Body, Clear Mind," called for the rescue workers to abandon traditional medical treatment in favor of large amounts of niacin, long sauna baths and exercise. Hubbard was against all pharmaceuticals and preached “natural” modes of treatment. Of further interest is the fact that the “Project” was co-founded by Scientologist Tom Cruise. Questioned about the wisdom of Hubbard’s system, Lopez asked, "This is a programme that should be funded. Who are the stupid people who are criticizing it?" Well, Ms. Lopez, just about everyone who doesn’t believe that intergalactic alien octopi were here billions of years ago imprisoning criminal souls in volcanoes…


The “Project” also has supporters in Congress. Senator Chuck Schumer and Representative Charles Rangel have both come out in favour of it and Representatives Vito Fossella and Carolyn McCarthy have requested $1.5 million in federal funds for the New York programmes. But, after all, Scientology is a religion and offers “faith-based” reasons for acceptance, so it must be okay with the White House, right?

In order to allow astrology to influence your life, you first have to ‘believe’ in it. Because of the very nature of astrology, unlike recognised scientific fact there are no measures that can be taken to prove the validity of ‘star signs’. But belief does not necessarily constitute a truth. Believing that the earth is flat doesn’t change its roundness. I’m afraid, there are scientific and rational facts that cannot be disputed even if we use vague terms like ‘open-minded’, ‘progressive’, ‘spiritual’ and ‘free thinking.’


Both astrological charts and horoscopes are based on the false premise that planets influence our psychological make-up depending on the time and place we were born (or conceived perhaps?) Now we know scientifically that if there is some magnetic influence by the planets, it is minimal. The gravitational pull of the person next to you is much more powerful than that of the nearest planet - fact. If you merely change your position by a few centimetres the effect on the human body is nullified.


Serious astronomers do not take the claims of astrologers seriously. There are about two hundred and fifty thousand million stars (kind of a guess) in our galaxy and another hundred thousand million other galaxies (wild guess, but prove me wrong…). Who decides what influences us and what doesn’t and in what way?


Recent scientific discoveries have confirmed that our physical characteristics are determined by the information encoded in our genes. Together with our environment, upbringing and early childhood, genes play a determining role in the formation of our personalities. Therefore, the very notion that stars and planets determine our physical and psychological makeup conflicts with a good deal of what we know about human physiology and psychology.


Many attempts have been made to statistically verify astrology, but none has succeeded. Geoffrey Dean and Arthur Mather, after reviewing over 700 astrology books and 300 scientific works conclude that "in effect, astrology presents a dazzling and technically sound superstructure supported by unproven beliefs. It starts with fantasy and then proceeds entirely logically." (Recent Advances in Natal Astrology: A Critical Review). Michel Gacquelin enjoys popularity with Astrologers because, in his very intensive studies, he seems to vindicate Astrological claims. But, in his work "The Scientific Basis of Astrology: Myth or Reality?" he states clearly: "Every attempt, whether of astrologers or scientists to produce evidence of astrological laws, has been in vain. It is now quite certain that the signs in the sky which presided over our births have no power whatsoever to decide our fates, to affect our heredity, characteristics, or to play any part, however humble in the totality of effects, random or otherwise, which form the fabric of our lives and mould our impulses to action" The Zodiac Investor.


Hundreds of astronomers, astrophysicists, and scientists in other fields officially published a letter alerting the public. "Those who wish to believe in astrology should realize that there is no scientific foundation for its tenets….It is simply a mistake to imagine that the forces exerted by the stars and planets at the moment of birth can, in any way shape our futures." (How to Think About Weird Things – Critical Thinking for a New Age by Theodore Schick and Lewis Vaughn)


Why does Astrology seem to work?
Human beings are more similar to each other than they think. A technique of vagueness called "cold reading" is used by fortune tellers, tea leaf readers and Tarot card readers. There are other known psychological limitations in our perception like Subjective Validation, Selective Attention, etc. that contribute to the illusion that an astrological reading is accurate.


What then, is the function of the Astrologer?

If he tells clients things that they already know, isn’t he defeating this purpose and aren’t these better off with professional counselling? If he reveals previously unknown secrets about their future and their character, can he conscientiously take responsibility for these claims and for the advice that ensues? However, Astrology will always appeal to our yearning for something beyond, on which we can shift responsibility for our actions.

The whole debate about what constitues domestic spying came to an absurd head at yesterday's White House Media Conference.


Rummy's puppet, Scott McClelland - he who knows no shame - announced that the Georgie and the boys were not guilty of domestic spying, but were only spying on international calls. He then went on to point out that there are diffeerences between international calls and domestic calls in the same way as there are differences between international mail & domestic mail, international flights and domestic flights, interrnational cats and domestic cats, etc.


However, he did not, or rather could not comment on one reporter's observation that when US intelligence is 'monitoring' an internaitonal call, surely one of the partiesis a 'domestic caller'.


Makes sense to me, but obviously just another issue to be tidied under the mat before the nezt election.