A new anthem for the English to be called MECCA?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_did_those_feet_in_ancient_time

Jerusalem

And did those feet in ancient time.
Walk upon Englands mountains green:
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On Englands pleasant pastures seen!

And did the Countenance Divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among these dark Satanic Mills?

Bring me my Bow of burning gold;
Bring me my Arrows of desire:
Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold!
Bring me my Chariot of fire!

I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand:
Till we have built Jerusalem,
In Englands green and pleasant Land.

John Forster, a well-known Church historian once said:  "Yes, a wonderful tune; but the words ask four questions and the answer to them all is NO."

I would like to change the words of the poem while keeping its metre and theme it on a time when the English were unconsciously Islamic and happy and glorious compared to now.

These days, you can beg and plead with Islamophobes again and again to tell you what they find so objectionable about the Koran and they will still be too lazy, illiterate or proud to read it.   If they have they will be unable to point to any particular verse that offends against morality or common sense.

The English could be Islamic again, and properly so, and it would be no bad thing, if the Koran is interpreted for them in the way that I would interpret it for them.   [Secular Koranism for the judiciary (who do not have to convert - only pass an examination that I myself shall set), Anglican Islam for the masses (incorporating Anglican forms of worship where they do not contradict the Koran) and Agnostic Indifference for the political classes in my proposed one party state that will come into being the moment Peter Bone MP's House of Commons Disqualification Bill is passed.   http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/khaw-consultancy-advisory-service-to.html]

England is stuffed with Muslims the English hate and fear precisely because they have been so disgracefully unIslamic.

How have they been unIslamic?

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/disobey-koran-at-your-peril.html explains.

Mecca

The Prophets of God could have been atheists like me

God is a creation of Man for the purpose of serving as an instrument of government to assist him in his politics, morality and spirituality.

It is quite possible to argue that none of the Prophets of God in fact believed in the actual existence of a living God, and only had the same motivation as parents who make their children believe in Santa.  That motivation is to incentivize better behaviour than might otherwise be shown without a belief in Santa or God.

"Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion." George Washington  

The purpose of Judaism is to demonstrate the superiority of a people who created God and who do what their God commands, even if that God does not promise a heaven or threaten a hell in the afterlife.   (If that is the case then I am at heart a Jew.)

It was the purpose of Christianity to spread the benefits of a unique and omnipotent God to those who are not born Jews and would not wish to convert.  Unfortunately, they did this by means of insisting on their totalitarian doctrine that one must believe in the divinity of Christ to be a Christian, or else go to hell.  (If that is the case then I am at heart a Christian who wishes non-Jews to enjoy the benefits of believing in an omnipotent perfect God that the Jews created for the benefit of Jews.)

The purpose of Islam is to synthesise the previous two religions by making it easier to practice and easier to understand through the means of one book said to be the direct revealed Word of God, which its adherents are meant to consult as often as they can.  To be a Muslim, all one need do is to declare that one submits to  God and affirm that Muhammad was His prophet.

If you understand the concept of a unique and omnipotent God, then you would have to accept the inexorable logic that there cannot be other gods but God, because, being omnipotent, He would not suffer them to exist to be His rivals.

God, if He exists, would embody Truth, Reason and Reality, all of which I am perfectly happy to submit to.

I have no difficulty agreeing with Muslims that Muhammad is a Prophet of Islam either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahadah

There is no god but God, and Muhammad is the messenger of God.

The Templeton Prize for Claire Khaw in 2012?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Templeton_Prize

... it is awarded to a living person who, in the estimation of the judges, "has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life's spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works". 

Until 2001, the name of the prize was "Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion", and from 2002 to 2008 it was called the "Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities".

The monetary value of the prize is adjusted so that it exceeds that of the Nobel Prizes, as Templeton felt "spirituality was ignored" in the Nobel prizes. At £1,000,000, as of 2009, it is the largest single annual financial prize award given to an individual by a philanthropic organisation. The prize is awarded "based on the decision of a panel of distinguished judges from various academic disciplines and religious traditions".   Hindus, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and atheists have been on the panel of judges and have been recipients of the prize.

I rather fancy the Prize to be honest, and could do with the dosh and the glory.

Questions:

1. Would the creation of a new religion count?
2. Would initiating debate on the creation of a new religion count?
3. Would creating a new religion that would unite atheists, agnostics and monotheists count?
   

https://templetonfoundation.wufoo.com/forms/2012-templeton-prize-nomination-form/


A new British state religion is my gift to the British people (let us call it a thought present) and my contribution to Western civilisation.  Its Holy Trinity consists of

1. Anglican Islam (for the masses)
2. Secular Koranism (for the judiciary)
3. Agnostic Indifference [to the existence of God] (for anyone who wishes to participate in politics)

What would make it unprecedented (were I to be awarded the Prize) would be the fact that I will have been able to successfully claim to be simultaneously Agnostic, Atheist and Monotheist and present a Unified Theory of God, Reason and Morality that will be acceptable to all three schools of thought, without any attempt to convert anyone to Islam at all.  

My answer to "What is consciousness and why it is important"

I would define what is consciousness, and say that it is self-consciousness.

Self-consciousness is of course the awareness of the difference between myself and other people and other objects.

Self-consciousness is only possible if one were able to suffer pain or enjoy pleasure.

I would then say that I assume that all conscious creatures - if they were wise - would wish would wish to maximise their pleasure and minimise their pain in the long term.

This policy of maximising pleasure and minimising pain requires the use of Reason.

How well one uses Reason to maximise pleasure and minimise pain is a reflection of one's Wisdom, which is where philosophy comes in.

The use of reason requires one to make judgments on whether a course of action is wise or unwise and leads us to consider the nature of Knowledge and Truth (Epistemology) which would assist us in the process of reasoning.

The question is important because it demonstrates how so much time can be spent by so many clever people going down an intellectual blind alley that does not make us any the wiser, which is what philosophy and philosophers worth their salt ought to do for us.

The question "What is consciousness?" demonstrates the truth and wisdom of the saying "Ask a silly question, get a silly answer."

How did that silly question come to be asked? It came to be asked because Descartes tried to prove the existence of God by using his theory of consciousness ("I think therefore I am"), which is linked to his theory of knowledge ("How can we ever know anything for certain?") leading eventually, centuries later, to the Donald Rumseld Theory of Knowledge (Known Knowns, Known Unknowns, Unknown Unknowns).

Tallis is preoccupied with the existence of God because he is an atheist anxious to disprove the existence of God.  However, my theory of Agnostic Indifference to the existence of a Living God would most rationally reconcile the opposing positions of Atheists and Monotheists ie

"Only the altruistic and truly good would behave as if God exists (and do as they think He would wish us to do if He existed) for the Greater Good even as they entertain doubts about His actual existence.

AGNOSTIC INDIFFERENCE - How to regard God with the PROPER Philosophical Detachment

An intelligent reading of the Koran is the recommended route to the Ideal Philosophical State of acknowledging the certainty of God existence as a concept (because it was Man who created Him after all), while at the same time playing with the possibility of His actual existence or non-existence, depending on whether you seek doubt or certainty. Both have their uses.

http://www.paltelegraph.com/opinions/views/8439-gilad-atzmon-left-and-islam.html 

"In both Islam and Judaism there is hardly a separation between the spiritual and the civil. Both religions stand as systems that provide thorough answers in terms of spiritual, civil, cultural and day to day matters."

 "the biggest current threat to world peace is posed by the Israeli-Arab conflict; a conflict rapidly becoming a war between a Jewish expansionist state and Islamic resistance."

"both Liberals and the Left are falling here, into a clearly supremacist argument, for both Islam and Judaism are more than just religions: they convey an entire ‘way of life,’ and stand as a thorough attempt to answer crucial questions regarding being in the world -- in dismissing them therefore, the Western Lib-Left are in danger of a complete dismissal of a large chunk of humanity."

 "a genuine Leftist and a good activist ... was sure that hating every religion equally was a ‘proper humanist qualification’, but the fact that an Islamophobe also considers himself a Judeophobe and Christiano-phobe is not necessarily a sign of a humanist commitment.  I kept challenging that good man; he then argued that it was actually Islamism (i.e., political Islam) which he didn’t approve of. I challenged him again, and bringing to his attention the fact that in Islam, there is no real separation between the spiritual and the political ... the Islamic unity of body and soul."

 "Rather than loving ourselves through the Palestinians and Egyptian masses and at their expense, we need to accept Palestinians and Egyptians for what they are and support them for who they are regardless of our own views on the world."

"This is the only real form of solidarity, for it aims at ethical rather than ideological conformity, and it puts humanity at its very centre. It reflects on Marx’s deep understanding of religion as the “sigh of the oppressed”. If we claim to be compassionate about people, then we should begin to learn to love them for what they are, rather than for what we expect them to be."

"Claiming to know more than others on base of ideological or political affiliation is nothing less than supremacy in practice."