The Sunni/Shia split was originally about Democracy vs Hereditary Monarchy

I've said before in my criticism of Neo-Con foreign policy that I feel it is inherently a mistake to try and force Western Democracy on the Islamic World.

But I do not want anyone thinking that means I think Democracy is incompatible with Islam.  In fact Democracy has been part of Islam from the beginning.

The split between the Sunnis and the Shiites was ORIGINALLY based on the Sunni view that a Caliph should be elected by the people and his ancestry doesn't matter.  As opposed to the Shia view that Ali ibn Abi Talib as a close relative and Son in Law of Muhammad inherited Muhammad's authority.

The Greek historian Theophanus does not call Muawiyah a king or an emperor, but rather a 'primus inter pares', or in Greek, a protosymboulos, "a first among equals", in the midst of his 'symboulioi'. Theophanus also referred to Umar ibn al-Khattab as "Primus inter pares".  Bewley 2002, p. 53.

I've already done a post on The Bible's view of Monarchy.  So on this issue I feel inclined to prefer the Sunni position.

I say "Originally", because this got distorted over time.  With many Muslims identifying as Sunni or Shia based on where they live or their family rather then an actual opinion on the original dispute.  And also further complicated by various sub-sects emerging within each major sect.

So today we have Shia countries that seemingly value Democracy to some degree, like Iran.  And Sunni monarchs who claim descent from the exact same family the original Shias favored, the descendants of Ali and Fatimah.  Like the modern Jordanian Royal Family (for whom the claimed descent is pretty legit) and the leader of I.S.I.S. (who's claim is probably B.S.).

The Shia highly revere Ali, but the Sunni don't dislike Ali.  Ali and Uthman both engaged in the same fallacy as Justinian and many other Christian emperors of Rome.  They wanted "Unity" in their nations, and concluded the way to achieve that was to make everyone agree.  True Unity comes from accepting disagreements.

Democracy is not incompatible with Islam, especially not Sunni Islam.

Anne Frank was attracted to Girls

The Diary of Anne Frank is the second highest selling Book of all time, topped only by The Bible.  I've always found it interested that both of the most popular books of all time were written by Jews.

Earlier today I say this interesting article about Anne Frank. 

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/09/07/anne-frank-was-attracted-to-girls/2/

Pretty cool I think.

According to Ezekiel 16, Sodom will be restored.

This fact about Ezekiel 16 has been relevant to my Universal Salvation argument in three prior posts on this Blog.  Words Translated Eternal, KJV only Universalism and My Evangelical Universalism does not contradict Free Will.  Typically also referencing Jude's use of the word Aionios in reference to the Fire that consumed Sodom.

The context is God scolding Judah, foretelling Judgment that will come upon Judah.  And He references both Samaria (The Northern Kingdom) and Sodom as earlier nations He judged.  Saying Samaria had less excuse then Sodom, and Judah has less excuse then Samaria.  But He also promises Judah will eventually be restored, just as Samaria and Sodom will be.  Verses 53-55

When I shall bring again their captivity, the captivity of Sodom and her daughters, and the captivity of Samaria and her daughters, then will I bring again the captivity of thy captives in the midst of them: That thou mayest bear thine own shame, and mayest be confounded in all that thou hast done, in that thou art a comfort unto them. When thy sisters, Sodom and her daughters, shall return to their former estate, and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their former estate, then thou and thy daughters shall return to your former estate.

Genesis 18-19 clearly tells us Sodom and Gomorrah had no righteous people in them, and so they were completely destroyed with no Survivors.  Lot and his Family were taken out, but they were up to this very day still considered foreigners living among them by the Sodomites.  And Lot's descendants became their own nations living in a different geographical region, Moab and Ammon.

So Sodom's restoration can't be via bringing their descendants back, as we traditionally assume Judah and Samaria's restorations will be.  Sodom's restoration can only be via The Resurrection of the Dead.  And because of Ezekiel 37, I believe that is what Judah and Samaria's restorations are ultimately about as well.

So there is no way an aboslutly Literal interpretation of Ezekiel 16 can get around it's obvious Universalist implications.

And yet, the only valid typolocial or allegorical interpretation, is even more Universalist.  As that says the three nations in question here must somehow represent all of Humanity.

You can't argue that even Sodom represents a type of believer.  Because even going off only what this passage says about Sodom, they are clearly people who never had a relationship with Yahuah.

The only valid typological interpretation, is that Sodom represents people who never believed, Samaria people who believed and then fell away, and Judah people who remained believers, but still even the best of us have our failings.  And our knowledge of God's Word only makes us more accountable for our Sins.

Therefore the Universalist implications of Ezekiel 16 are unavoidable.

Update April 13th 2018: Younger Sister?

I've become aware of an objection to the Universalist use of this passage by pointing out in verse 46 how Sodom is called a Younger Sister of Judah.  "This name must be a poetic idiom or something since literal Sodom clearly came before Judah or Samaria", they say.

Here is the problem with that.  Samaria is definitely called Judah's older Sister.  Even though the Northern Kingdom split off from Solomon.  And Joseph the dominate tribe of the North was literally younger then Judah the dominate tribe of the South in terms of their respective patriarchs.  And Samaria specifically was founded during the reign of Omri but never became the sole chief capital till Jehu.

In Exodus and Hosea Israel as a whole is proclaimed Yahuah's Firstborn when He brought them out of Egypt.  And Joseph received the Firstborn inheritance because of Jacob's love for Rachel though Judah got the Kingship.

What's not literal in that verse is the sibling terminology, not what Nations are being refereed to.

It is still implied in the narrative of the passage that Sodom came first because the Judgment of Sodom was the warning Samaria failed to heed, while Judah failed to heed both warnings.

Update November 10th 2018: Fortunes

I've been presented with another objection, that God is only saying the Fortunes of Sodom will be restored.   Well "Fortunes" isn't used the KJV but I guess they're referring to their Estates.  The passage also refers to the Daughters of Samaria.  The point remains it's the same as Samaria and Jerusalem's restorations.

They actually suggest it's fulfilled in Jerusalem's restoration because of when Jerusalem is called Spiritually Sodom and Egypt.  I find that kind of semantics laughable. 

Fact is it's also part of what YHWH says here that Jersalem's Wickedness was worse then Sodom or Samaria's, and that's why Jerusalem is compared to Sodom in places like Revelation 11.  So it would make Him Unjust to not restore Sodom, instead he chronologically will restore Sodom first.

Freedom of Speech is meaningless if it's conditional

This post is going to be another online rant about how people of every political ideology tend to be hypocrites in their attitude towards Freedom of Speech, supporting it if they agree but opposing it if they disagree, and then making excuses for that hypocrisy.

But first, there is something I want to clarify, because the words "Freedom of Speech" in America have a tendency to cause an assumption I'm citing something I did not actually cite.  So let me be clear.

I ultimately do NOT care what the First Article of Amendment to the United States Constitution says.  Freedom of Speech, like the other rights mentioned in that Amendment, is a concept that existed before then.  It is to me a moral value more so then a civil one.  So a Constitutional Lawyer's opinion on what this archaic document legally protects is irrelevant to my moral position on Freedom of Speech.

There was a time in the past when I was a Constitutionalist, but thankfully I am not anymore.  Frankly I think the Constitution is a wicked anti-democratic document.

So I get sick of seeing rants about how "The First amendment only means the Government can't do something", to defend corporations and internet websites choosing to censor their users/employees.  Especially when it includes seeing Liberals making what is usually a conservative argument, the same argument conservatives will use to say the state shouldn't get involved when a bakery doesn't want to make a cake for a Gay wedding, or a restaurant that doesn't want to serve Black People.

But even if I wanted to make this rant Constitutionally.  The fact that the Constitution technically is only restricting Government goes for ALL of the rights that make up the Bill of Rights, including the parts that protect our privacy and due process.

And the fact is originally the notion that it only restricts Government applied even more specifically to the Federal Government.  Before the Civil War many state laws openly violated the Freedom of Religion clause by pretty much codifying The Ten Commandments, and were upheld by the courts because the Constitution only restricted the federal government.  Then after the Civil War the 13th through 15th Amendments were passed, and it came to be understood that the state also has a responsibility to protect people from others who would violate those rights. 

So when I see people okay with YouTube taking down controversial videos so long as they're videos they disagree with.  I see that as dangerous, I see it as dangerous to their own agenda in the long run because that same abuse of power they are setting a precedent for may be used against them later.

So I don't care how offensive it is, If you won't stand up for the Freedom of Speech of those you find offensive, you forfeit the moral right to cling to it to protect your own speech.

Pewdipie is an idiot, he stupidly said the N word during a live stream.  A form of idiocy not uncommon now days.  Deciding because you find that word offensive to support people trying to use the DMCA to take his videos down sets a very dangerous precedent, because trust me lots of Liberal videos on YouTube could be threatened by the DMCA just as easily, like FeminsitFrequency.  (I could go on a separate rant about how I find Copyright law itself to be inherently wrong.)

I've had this rant in my head since long before this recent controversy even happened.  Via my awareness of more obscure incidents of YouTubers being taken down.  I don't generally find MumkeyJones funny, and I find his videos directed at Islam really ignorant.  But at the end of the day all shutting down stupid Islamphobic channels does is make a martyr out of them, and thus only further reinforces the worldviews they and their followers hold.

Meanwhile YouTube is also labeling videos as age restricted for simply talking about LGBT issues.  Or the user being openly LGBT.  And people on the right aren't getting involved on that issue because they think it won't hurt them.  Or when it does decide they don't mind their videos being for adults only.

All of this is a threat to Freedom of Speech.  Being selective on when you stand up for it will only weaken your credibility in standing up for it when you do.

You can't have Private Property without Government.

[Update: This post is from early in my being a Socialist but I was still kidna endorsing some quasi Conspiracy Theory stuff that I don't anymore. ]