(no subject)

[mrph]

I've seen this blog entry linked from various places, some of them on LJ. It's a little more sophisticated than some of the predictable comments on the Yahoo message boards, but it's still bullshit. This bit in particular:

And deep in the heart of every true Muslim, one that follows the word of Allah as spoken by Muhammed to the letter, they want us dead or gone.

It's the ones who don't follow the teachings strictly and have assimilated who show any sense of tolerance, understanding, or comprimise. They are the ones who we should tolerate.

Someone just doesn't get it, and from the sound of it neither do the people who are eagerly linking to this.

So the only true muslims are the people planting bombs and those who would, on some level, like to see us dead or gone? Right. Isn't that a bit like saying that the only true Christians are the ones who follow every crazy comment in Leviticus and have homicidal views on shellfish?

Some of the casualties were muslim, I'm sure. And, of course, there are the various speakers from mosques and the Muslim association of Britain who've been condemning this in no uncertain terms. By this logic, none of them are muslims either. Which is news to them, and probably more than a little insulting - since when did the Christians get to decide who is and isn't really a muslim? Hey, how about we let the Buddhists decide which branch of Christianity is the one true Christian path, then? Makes about as much sense.

Don't dignify these bastards by saying they're the only true muslims. That just helps to prop up their delusions of grandeur.

How about we say they're a bunch of murderous ratfucks who'll be spending the rest of their lives in a cosy British jail cell once the police catch up with them? 'Cos that sounds a lot better to me.

Comments

[valkyriekaren.livejournal.com]

You blow up a train near Aldgate, and you're pretty much ensuring that some of the casualties will be Muslims - that's right near one of London's largest Bangladeshi communities.

[aoakley.livejournal.com]

Isn't that a bit like saying that the only true Christians are the ones who follow every crazy comment in Leviticus and have homicidal views on shellfish?

Yes. And?

What's wrong with admitting that the only sane society is a secular society?

What's wrong with saying that anyone who actually follows a religion, as opposed to just sort of hanging about with one, is a simpleton?

All religions are by definition stupid because if they didn't require suspension of sanity then they wouldn't be called religions, they'd be called philosophies or sciences.

That's what marks out the difference between a religion and a philosophy or a science. Philosophies and sciences don't require you to believe in something inherrently illogical. Religions do. That's what "faith" is..

Why do we have to spend out lives with this political correct doublethink nonsense of not being able to criticise religion?

[mrph.livejournal.com]

Happy to criticise it, no problem there.

But there is a difference between saying "this particular religion is stupid and flawed because..." (The bit I've got no problem with) and looking in - from an outsider's perspective - and (for example) telling a Christian "You're not really a Christian, because your interpretation of the Bible isn't what I think it should be".

That second one isn't a judgement that outsiders without in-depth knowledge of the religion in question can really make, is it? At least not on the terms that this blog seems to be making it, IMO.

[aoakley.livejournal.com]

Whilst I agree with your point, you miss a wider problem; I'm not saying that "this particular religion is stupid and flawed because
". I'm saying all religions are stupid by definition, and that people who follow them are simpletons. Something that, if Labour get their way, I could shortly find myself in prison for saying.

Nobody needs to examine the specifics of a religion in order to prove that it is stupid. If it didn't require suspension of logic, then it wouldn't be a religion, it'd be a philosophy or a science. The very word "religion" indicates stupidity.

The author of the original article gets this. He realises that in order for someone who is NOT a simpleton to have a relationship with a religion, they cannot follow a religion, they can merely be bystanders who associate themselves with a religion for some reason (such as tradition, culture, family, friends) other than actual belief.

This is a very important distinction, yet political correctness only allows us to criticise individual components of specific religions. PC does not allow us to state the logically consistent fact that all people who follow religions are simpletons. PC is therefore wrong, and PC needs to be corrected so that secularism is given the freedom of expression required to free societies around the world. Secularism is as important to a modern society as democracy; a society that has democracy without secularism is no more free than a society that has no democracy at all.

[macrina.livejournal.com]

Just because something isn't logical, doesn't make it stupid! Not everything in life is logical. People for instance aren't logical. Does that mean we are all stupid? I'm told alot of quantum mechanics isn't logical, does this mean the universe is stupid?

As a person with 2 degrees in science/medical related subjects, I don't particularly consider myself a simpleton. I may think different from you, but Cambridge University certainly didn't think I was stupid!

[aoakley.livejournal.com]

Just because something isn't logical, doesn't make it stupid!

I disagree. In the particular context of this thread, basing your entire life around illogic is stupid.

Not everything in life is logical. People for instance aren't logical. Does that mean we are all stupid?

It means that people make mistakes. Making mistakes should not be celebrated. The only worthy part of a mistake is that it should be avoided in the future.

I'm told alot of quantum mechanics isn't logical, does this mean the universe is stupid?

Quantum mechanics is entirely logical, we just haven't worked out all the rules yet.

And that takes us back to religion. Just because we don't know everything doesn't validate making stuff up to fill in the gaps.

[macrina.livejournal.com]

You believe that the stuff in a religion is made up, but you can't know because you weren't around at the time. How is that different from someone believing that the stuff isn't made up? No one at this point in time is in a position the know if any of the religions are right. We can just choose whether we believe them to be true or believe them to be false.

[aoakley.livejournal.com]

Incorrect. You're assuming the only way to prove something is by experimentation. That is only one way. The other way is proof by deduction.

Any religion that did not require faith in something essentially untrue or unprovable would not be called a religion, it would be called a philosophy or a science. Therefore we can deduce that all religions require faith in the untrue or the unprovable, which is a very, very silly thing to base your life around.

There is nothing wrong with theorising about something unprovable, but it would be exceptionally stupid to base one's life around such a theory.

And that's the original author's main point; that it is those who actually base their lives around such silliness that are the real followers of religions; those who just take onboard the philosophical viewpoints but ditch the incredulous trappings aren't followers of religion, they're just hangers-on. From this he deduces that the dangers to society are followers of religion.

[macrina.livejournal.com]

well we both believe we are right!

I'm not sure which category I fall in. My life didn't change significantly when I became a Christian, I just now believe in God. Silliness is a point of view. Alot of people base their lives around money. How silly is that!

[aoakley.livejournal.com]

well we both believe we are right!

Yes, but only I can prove I am right. ;-)

[macrina.livejournal.com]

Only because you consider a theoretical deduction as proof. Again we differ in opinion here.

[aoakley.livejournal.com]

It's not an opinion, it's how proof actually works.

[macrina.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry but maths doesn't prove there isn't a God and more than billions of people believing in one proves there is! Both make assumptions, and it is these assumptions that could be wrong.

You are perfectly within your right to believe what you like, and so am I. The only way we'll find out if either of us is right is when we die, and I'm not THAT bothered!

P.S. apologies to Morph for hijacking your journal!

[aoakley.livejournal.com]

Absolutely correct. Therefore a rather silly thing to base your life around?

[macrina.livejournal.com]

Ah - we get back to the belief thing again. I base my life around treating everyone with respect because I believe that is the right thing to do. What you base your life on is up to you.

We've come full circle and I'm bored now. Next time lets' talk about something else ;-)

[auroramama]

It may seem to be logical that people who place any dependence on matters of faith are therefore stupid, but it isn't logical fact, because in the event, it turns out not to be the case. Brilliant people have popped up in just about every religion we have a history for. You may argue that religion was their blind spot, but calling them all simpletons is ignoring the data.

Logic won't do you much practical good if it isn't tied to observations.

[auroramama]

I'm sorry -- in my first reply, I lost track of your definition of following a religion, as opposed to picking and choosing: "try all things, hold fast to that which is good."

I still think there's something wrong with calling a non-discriminating follower of religion a simpleton. For one thing, the word suggests a harmless idiot rather than a dangerous fanatic. For another, I'm not at all sure that religious intolerance is directly correlated with complete religious observance. The Christian "fundamentalists" are no such thing; they're happy to ignore verses about giving all you have to the poor (not to mention the entire Torah except for the bit about homosexuality.) Even the most observant Jews are following the conclusions of centuries of arguing about what the Torah "really" means. Some commandments are taken literally, others have been interpreted into harmlessness or elaborated into unearthly quantities of housework.

To me, it seems that almost any religion (except possibly UU, which I suppose you would categorize as a bunch of people hanging around near some religions), and at least some secular movements as well, can grow intolerance like a kind of fungus. (My phlox are succumbing to powdery mildew right now, their leaves covered with whitish mold that twists them into grotesque shapes.) Intolerance as a disease of religion is recognizable wherever it takes root: hatred, extremism, and preemptive paranoia. Oh, yes, and misogyny. Wherever people gather together to tell everyone else that they're going to hell, they also take a little time to make laws against the women and the queers.

[razorjak.livejournal.com]

I don't know where to begin ripping apart that jackass's post. The title of the blog says it all.

[jruske.livejournal.com]

Yeah... people are not bright.