Wednesday, May 24, 2006

More and more alike every day

I have been arguing that the Christianists and the Islamists are becoming more and more alike. Both are intolerant and both will use violence to get what they want. The only restraining feature on Christians is that the cultures in which they live are creations of the Enlightenment and Englightenment values fight against Christianist values making it more difficult for them to act violently. But the tendency is there. The assurance that they have divine truth leads the faithful to the conclusion that they must impose that truth on others. They are willing to defend the faith by violence and that will become more apparent as time goes by. We are in age of rising intolerance and authoritarianism. The West is threatened by it. It is threatened by the Christianists within society and by the Islamists as well.

America's threat is the lunatic fundamentalists who control the Republican Party. Europes soft underbelly is the welfare state subsidising the cultural isolation of Islamists. Both Europe and the US ought to be aware of these threats. Neither apparently is. Europe is burying it's head in the sand and chanting multiculturalism as if that means shit to the Islamists who hate such values. Americans may chuck out the corrupt and tyrannical Republicans but not because of the theocratic elements that control the party but because of the imcompetence of the Bush administration.

Now here is another example of how these "faiths" are moving in similar directions. Nicholas Almeida is a Catholic and former government official in Mumbai, India. He has offered a reward of $25,000 "for the head" of Dan Brown, author of The DaVinci Code.

A far more constructive approach is that of the Catholic Social Forum which said that unless the movie is banned they will launch "a death fast". One should encourage them and hope the film has a very long run in the cinema. The Mumbai Catholic Council has said that unless the Indian government uses state force to ban the film that they, these loving Christians, will forceably stop it themselves. Maybe they should strap dynamite to their bodies and blow up the cinema.

Archbishop Stanislaus Fernandes, Catholic, drones on irrationally. "Every individual has a right to his religious belifes and to enjoy the respect to them from the followers of other religions." The first half is true the second half is not. No one has a right to "respect" from others. And it is rich that the monsters in the Catholic Church think they automatically have a right to respect at all. They don't respect the truth but cover up their crimes. And when they have the power to do so they do everything possible to supress the religious views of other faiths. They are not advocates of "respect" for beliefs except when they are being challenged.


HL Mencken put it this way: "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." And in closing I will again quote the great Mencken:

"The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame."
"True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge."

6 Comments:

Blogger Derreck said...

How rude and redicilous. I agree that people may judge the Truth, but such rude and abnormal threats are quite dumb, so far for your "great Mencken". I was most irritated by this part;

"The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame."

Which I find more offensive than people being against the DaVinci code's release in the cinema's. Now I'm not saying that I'm about to go into a "death fast" until you remove this post from our Blog, or pursuade people to get me your head for $25000,-; all I'm saying is that people must respect Christianity for what Christians think it's worth, people can be hurt badly when you destroy or attack their personal feelings.

Now there is a difference; the people who are Christian to make money or get power, the Pope for example, are harmed because it touches their money- or power-source. I don't give a sigh for them, what I do care about is the normal person, whoes Faith is attacked. It wasn't very nice to depict the Prophet wrongfully, nor to disGrace Christ. Yet people should be able to make a difference between fiction/ a joke, and fact. Dan Brown is a good man for all I know, and I find every threat against him or his movie, grocely offensive, and worthy of punnishment. It's a pity that some people seem to have a problem with seperating a joke from a nasty move against Christ.

May 26, 2006

 
Blogger GodlessZone said...

Derrick writes: "all I'm saying is that people must respect Christianity for what Christians think it's worth, people can be hurt badly when you destroy or attack their personal feelings."

People can have their feelings hurt by anything. No one has the right to go through life without having their feelings hurt. If we followed your principle all speech would be controlled by the most sensitive person in the community --- the one easiest offended decides what all others could say.

Bad ideas have to be challenged not respected. Bad ideas led to bad results. Do we stop talking about medicine because it may offend witchdoctors and faith healers? Surely you, as a gay man, should see that fundamentalists argue that being gay violates the rights of others because it "offends" them. I have one book where two Christian writers argue that since good Christian parents are upset if their child is gay that being gay violates the rights of the parents. They are saying the same thing you are saying. Ideas can be attacked all you want but people must be left alone. Their ideas and thoughts can be discussed and exposed for being lies.

Throughout history when bad ideas dominate (theocracy, Marxism, fascism, etc) people suffer. Ideas are the incumbator for a future society. Bad ideas if ignored can evolve into bad societies where far worse things happen than having your feelings hurt.

And not only do I think Mencken great. I think he is brillant and one of the most amusing writers of the last century. I put him right up there with Robert Ingersoll. If I had to go through life with only the writings of two men I would take Ingersoll and Mencken.

May 26, 2006

 
Blogger Derreck said...

Now, I agree with you, as you are right, well, mostly. What I meant though, was that this Mencken guy was being quite rude. I therefor explained why. I do not know Mencken, and I only reacted on the small text you posted here.

I said I had no problem with Christianity, or "ideas" being judged, in fact, I judge Christianity all the time. What I said only referred to Mencken's harsh and rude words concerning "superstition" among people "who should know better." Some "superstitions" are very personal, which includes Christianity, I did not say (once more) that doubting or judging it is wrong, in fact it is a good thing for exactly the reason you mentioned; when people have bad ideas, other people should judge them, so they don't get into the trouble such a bad idea might bring. All I said was that ATTACKING such ideas or "superstitions" is a bad thing. Bad ideas should be talked about, but respected.

Islamists think America is a very bad idea, so they attack it. (to take an example) That is wrong; you agree with me I hope? Islamists should instead debate with America, to see what is right and what is wrong.

I know I'm making a lot of noise over just three lines of text, but I must admit I am/was thinking quite low of Mencken. Perhaps I should read some of his work? Besides all this, people who hate or discriminate gay people follow a bad idea, and are either stupid, or so evil that they're unworthy of Love.

May 26, 2006

 
Blogger GodlessZone said...

I suspect it may be an English limitation here. To attack an idea is to question it, call it absurd, point out why it is bad etc. Attack does not mean violence necessarily. One can attack physically but this is not what he means. Nor did he said one should be rude. He said one should not be restrained by politeness. What he means is that one should not hold their criticism just because people say it's not nice to question someone's religious beliefs. This is the what Sam Harris writes about in his book The End of Faith.

You can't attack bad ideas with bombs. You can only attack people with bombs. Ideas can only be attacked with other ideas. I think you should read more Mencken. I think everyone should. Also remember that Mencken also was something of a satarist. So his comments always have a bit of a bite in them for that reason. He is writing not only to enlighten but to amuse.

May 26, 2006

 
Blogger Derreck said...

Well, perhaps it IS just my perception of his English, I found Mencken's words quite rude, so that's what I was talking about. I will see if there is some Mencken around here.

So I meant the attack in words, people's souls can be attacked without bombs; violence does not need to be physical, not that I found mr. Mencken's words that offending...

May he amuse me, and where possible enlighten my path. :)

May 26, 2006

 
Blogger Einzige said...

So, Derreck, is it bad to "attack the soul" of a person who believes that jews should be exterminated, because such an attack might offend that person?

May 30, 2006

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

 

Web Counters Religion Blog Top Sites