Offensiveness

Offensiveness, as defined by dictionary.com (the best source of information bar Wikipedia), is: causing resentful displeasure; highly irritating, angering, or annoying.
I’ve always supposed that, being a political atheist (or ’secular humanist’…as a more accurate term in the context of politics), I would end up raising the ire of certain groups – particularly ones  such as the Catholic Church, Family First party and SaltShakers all of which I have absolutely no patience or sympathy for. Politically, these groups and I are diametrically opposed on most issues. All three, in my view, are bigoted, anti-science, sexist, homophobic and dogmatic. I’ll discuss the finer details of that later, but for now, I’m talking about offensiveness.

What constitutes offensiveness in this context? If I say “I hate religion”, most people won’t take offense to it because I’m not attacking a particular religion. But because religions vary in their dogmaticness, vitriol and rationality, it would simply be too simplistic to say that all religions are bad, or all are good or all are mediocre. They are all relative; I for one would argue that, compared to the three main Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam and Christianity), Sikhism is fairly mild. I also find Mormonism to be particularly bad a religion if not for their door-to-door marketing techniques and the clear absurdity of believing Utah to be some kind of holy site (whereas no other monotheistic religion says so). Utah isn’t Jerusalem. But is this targeting of certain religions fair?

I very much doubt that this poster would be socially acceptable in Australia, given our huge Christian population...

Freedom to insult religion is a fundamental human right, I believe. If the insult isn’t justified, then the argument can be taken down in true argumentative style (complete with jibes at the opposition’s facial hair). If I declare that Judaism is evil because of events in Israel/Palestine and that the conflict there is because Judaism is an evil religion, it can be safely concluded that what I’m saying is abjectly specious. But people should have that right to think that. It might be terribly and deliberately offensive, but it’s no more irrational than Creationism. I’m opposed to any attempt to remove free speech. In that example, I’m fairly sure most Jews would be offended if I called their religion evil. I’m maliciously targeting them. But how is this different to liberals calling conservatives ‘evil’? If someone holds that value (be it religion or politics) close to heart, then it can be very offensive. But what if that value of theirs offends you?

As an atheist, should I have the socially-permissable right to insult the hell out of Christianity – seeing as Christianity as a concept and a religion, offends me? Actually it doesn’t really…but I’m reacting to Christians who are offended by atheists. In an ideal world, nobody would be offended by diverse views on the world – but let’s assume they do. Well..the thing here is that saying Jews are evil (to re use that same example) is deliberate and calculated. Me saying that Christianity is throughly annoying is not deliberately offensive. I don’t go out of my way to insult Christians. I might vote against them or rally against attempts by Family First to destroy secular education…but that’s about it.

Should I make myself feel offended by these people? In reality, I condescendingly cast a weary eye over them and wish they'd just sod off...

People can choose to be offended by someone’s actions, assuming their actions were deliberately offensive. I could choose to be offended by anti-abortion protesters (whose inability to recognise the difference between a bunch of totipotent stem cells is second only to their inability to understand women’s rights), but I’m not. I would understand, however, if a woman who’d recently had an abortion would be offended – particularly if the anti-abortionists were religious ones (the ones who say you’re going to hell if you do X, Y and Z). The midway point between being insulting to someone and unintentionally being rude about their belief system is insensitivity. Most people suffer from this. It’s not deliberate. The problem that lies herein is determining whether something said or done was deliberate or not. It’s no easy feat.

It takes a religious mind to…

…let your daughter die, whilst you pray for her. Of course, we could do what most apologists do and dismiss this case as one of extremism. But surely it takes a tenuous (if not nonexistent reason) justification like that of religion to have such things take place? Would this happen if the individuals concerned were atheists? Surely not.

Discuss.

Catholicism explained

By Reuben.

Facebook is just so awesome. So awesome, in fact, that some Catholics are given the opportunity to explain themselves.

John Ashley's irony-o-meter must be malfunctioning

Hear the words of a ‘modern Catholic’:

Hello, everyone.
As a modern catholic I know why you think that the Pope’s stance seems a little crazy but as someone who understands the rules i thought i’d better respectfully tell you why no ammount of preassure will ever change his mind.
You see the Catholic church will NEVER endorse contraception of any kind because in its founding rules it does not believe in sex for any other reason than for having babies or a token of love in marrige. The church would be contradicting itself if it supported contraception because its just like saying its ok to have sex outside of our rules.
The rules will never change, they are there mostly to protect people – even though I’m sure it seems like nannying. There are heaps of reasons why Catholics don’t believe in promiscuous behaviour but i’m sure you guys are smart enough to know them all, so i wont list them ha ha.
Anyway hope you’re a little clearer now.
Happy easter guys, peace

Of course it would be completely presumptuous of me to say all Catholics actually support the Pope’s futile, irrational and unethical approach to tackling the HIV/AIDS crisis, but it certainly concerns me that the Pope’s stance appears unstoppable. Where’s the UN condemning his stance? There should be public outrage at the retarded policy the Vatican has put out. And will the majority of the world’s Catholics turn against the Vatican? That remains to be seen. Thankfully, we have moderate, reasonable Catholics like Kath.

How Fundamentalists ‘think’

By Reuben

Across the Internet, there is much discussion and discourse on how exactly the Bible, Koran etc pines against homosexuality, abortion etc. As discussed here, some have a more liberal interpretation of such texts. But what makes a fundamentalist determine what’s heretical/bad/liberal/logical from what’s conservative/backwards/myopic/traditional? How do they ‘think’ (and note that I use the term ‘think’ with a certain amount of irony here) or infer biblical, non-biblical or anti-biblical themes from seemingly unconnected policy areas?

The way in which I’ve been thinking about this is their reactions to certain movies – even movies that aren’t overtly on religion. One such movie is V for Vendetta – a fabulous movie in my opinion -  and it has been slammed by many Christian religious groups. I have no clue why; V for Vendetta talks about the tyranny of the British government in the near future when the country becomes a fascist state. It explores the process of change in government through its protagonist – a shadowy character called ‘V’. The main themes in V for Vendetta are:

• Freedom and civil liberties (how the people are being oppressed)
• Estranged Romance (the two main characters develop a bond).
• The believability of deceit and lies (how the fascist state came to be established).
• The limitations of technology (as V says: “ideas are bulletproof“).
• The potentials of anarchy (the fascist reign is toppled).

Naturally, the next question we should be asking ourselves is ‘where does V for Vendetta discuss religion?’ It doesn’t. The only reference I can think of is that the main antagonist – Chancellor Sutler – who masterminded the fascist state is a “deeply religious man“. But, like Hitler, he is clearly motivated by evil – not religion. His character would be just as effective if he were an Atheist.
When his henchman proclaim “strength through unity, unity through faith” the context is not biblical in nature at all, even if the characters themselves are actually religious. If the fascist state was theocratic, logically it would be hunting out atheists as well – yet it’s made very clear that queers, refugees and the mentally unwell are the main targets. Atheism is not painted in a good light or a bad light; it’s not even mentioned.

Chancellor Sutler: a religious man, but places evil in a higher regard

There is no religious undertone whatsoever in the script, but that doesn’t stop our fundamentalists from seeing a pernicious agenda designed to topple their core beliefs, dogmas and superstitions. If Chancellor Sutler was an atheist, would they back down their criticism?

According to ‘Christian Spotlight’, V for Vendetta’s moral ranking is “offensive“. For the most part, their criticism is a reverse ad hominem claim – ‘the evil guys are Christians…why are you making Christians evil?‘. Yes, supposedly Christianity is the antithesis of evil. Here these reviewers roar:

The movie is preachy to say the least, and harps on three major themes and one minor one: 1) the evil of America; 2) the government control of media; 3) the evil of Christianity; and 4) the innocence of Islam.

Yes…that’s right. It’s all against America. To borrow Christian Spotlight’s own ad hominem-styled arguments, V for Vendetta portrays America in a good light…because the fascists are against what they call ‘Arse-erica’. Clearly freedom of speech (which is what V for Vendetta is considerably about) is not in any way, shape or form ‘American’. The irony continues unabated:

The second fiction of the movie is that of a government-controlled (or supported) media which brainwashes its populace. In reality, this is true only of oppressive regimes and socialist societies like England where the media is, in fact, already Leftist. In the United States, we have a freedom of speech that is so wide-ranging in its liberties that it permits our media to print blatant forgeries libeling our President.

Yes, the BBC is obviously less objective than Christian news channels. But this point is irrelevant to the script anyway; the media outlets depicted in V for Vendetta were very much censored. How is this disputing the freedom of America’s press?
Finally the truth is revealed:

The only totalitarianisms we have known in the modern era are either secular or Islamic, precisely the ones that the United States is trying to protect the world from.

Watch out Christians, when the new atheist/Islamic/British order takes hold, you won’t be spared. And here’s the icing on the cake:

And when movies persistently portray our country and our faith as evil, even skeptical believers who think that Hollywood is too shallow or too objective (!) to make anti-Christian movies should sit up and take notice.

Got that Hollywood? You’ve got an agenda to uphold.

Finally, here’s a trailer of V for Vendetta:

Also published on YAS.

Awesome Anecdote

By Reuben.

I know you’re all probably very sick of me bantering on about Christian fundamentalists, but I just have to share this little anecdote from one:

This past spring I was expelled from my high school. Why? Because I’m a Christian. There was a girl in my class who was wiccan, and I didn’t want demons to possess me or anyone else and save her from satan. So, I told her that her faith was evil and told her to accept Jesus as Savior and she would be saved. Simple as that. Just say the sinners prayer and you can be saved!
Well I got sent to the principal for that. She said I was ‘discriminating’ against her religion. I was only doing what the Bible, God, Jesus and my pastor said! How is that wrong!?
Well, afterwards I was forced to aplologize, even though it’s a sin to, so I never meant what I said. So, instead I put a copy of a Jack Chick tract in her locker about how wicca and a paganism lead to murder, rape and other horrible things because it lets the devil get inside of you. I also left a little note about how she was going to hell. I was hoping she would see the error of her ways and repent from the evil, disgusting ‘religion’.
Instead I was called down to the principal again and this time there were two police officers there. And they said I was under arrest for harrasing this girl and threatening her! What did I do? I just wanted her to accept Jesus and be saved! Now her family (all evil, stupid, disgusting god hating wiccans) want to sue me for discrimination and creating a hostile workplace! How is that fair? She’s the one who’s discriminating against me because I’m one with the LORD!
Jesus is the only way to salvation! It’s that simple people! No pope, wicca, or anything stupid like that! JESUS ONLY! Why is is wrong to tell others that? It’s all the fault of the ACLU and simlar atheist organizations trying to destroy us Christians. Next they’ll want to genocide us for doing our Godly work.

Then, for the token intellectual gesture, I ask of you: does the intrinsic nature of religion harbour such madness?

A young Absolutist

By Reuben.

Recently, there has been much discussion on religious fundamentalists. One particular fundamentalist, fourteen-year old Jonathon Krohn, has been hogging the Republican limelight of late with the release of his new book, ‘Defining Conservatism’. The guy has a blog too. And this is what I found:

Conservatism is not a viewpoint for wimps. Conservatism is a viewpoint of hardcore values. We cannot give into the sway of moderate views. This ideology, lack there of, is creeping into the ideological camps of both Liberalism and Conservatism. We must not give into the ideological pressure of moderates and, thereby, dilute our viewpoint. A watered down version of Conservatism does not inspire the same flame as the viewpoint itself, in its entirety. A Conservative revolution is impossible, unless Conservatism is left intact. An influx of moderate views into the Conservative camp can only be destructive of Conservatism, and will only contribute to creating a bleaker future for the Conservative movement. In sum, Conservatives must stick to their values, and never change those values. Conservatism is Conservatism, and it must not be changed by moderate views.

Conservatism might as well be a synonym for religious extremism, if this particular pre-pubescent is to be trusted in his lurid definitions of ‘conservatism’. It’s scary that, at such a young – and highly impressionable – age, he’s already on the path to Absolutism. It wouldn’t be naive to suggest that pious religion thrives in such mindsets.

Christian Coalition of America

By Reuben.

For those of you who have had the misfortune of living in a nation where bigoted, racist, backwards, religious imbeciles actually wield political clout, I must express some sympathy. They exist; and there’s many of them. But one of the most powerful ones yet is the Christian Coalition of America which does exactly what it says on the tin: preach a dogma of irrational superstition whilst undermine attempts to establish a rational and fair social and economic policy.

A quick scan through their site reveals some self-parodying nuggets of comedy GOLD. Have a look at this quote:

We support the nomination and confirmation of judges that will uphold and apply the Constitution as it was originally written by our Founding Fathers – not seek to re-write it to their own ideological ends, or make law from the bench.

Isn’t that just awesomely ironic? It is well-established that the Founding Fathers, whilst subscribing to the religious dogma of their times, were avowedly secular when it came to politics. Freedom and liberties are not – in any way, shape or form – synonymous with religion, least of all Christianity. Anyway, let’s have another tentative peak at these true fundamentalists:

It seems to me that, if we’re going to have “tolerance” in this country, then there also has to be “tolerance” for the views of the majority, (as in, the people of over 30 states and counting that have passed amendments to their state constitutions defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman).

Did you hear that? Being tolerant of minority views automatically means majority views are supplanted. Apparently, it’s completely justified that same sex marriage be banned on the whims of the majority’s views. Well…a sizeable portion think there should be some legislation protecting queers from discrimination. But that’s not the point. If we were to justify a policy based solely on its popularity, then we might as well justify it on the basis of whether or not I like Blueberry flavored ice-cream or not; it’s not relevant to the policy in question. But that doesn’t stop America’s finest minds from airing out the sock drawer:

The problem is that once you permit the gay people to marry, you are showing our children that it is perfectly ok to be gay, and some children that would otherwise straighten out will end up being gay.

That was from a CBS Poll and forum, not a Christian group. I suppose that would tend to fit in with the results of the Prop. 8 legislation which saw queers stripped of their rights and their dignity and shunned by a state whose population is more than twice the size of Australia’s: California. And they’re supposedly a ’secular’ state’.

The Christian Coalition of America's website is about as sophisticated as the local work-experience kid would have allowed it...

So, to end off, I should ask you: Are these idiots fundamentalists? Should the term ‘fundamentalism’ apply only to a minority view? It’s important to realise that most Americans actually think the removal of such liberties is rational and fair policy.

Diverse Interpretations

By Reuben.

Religion, and religious texts are always open to interpretation; everyone has a different take on the Talmud, the Koran or ‘Dianetics‘ (a Scientology spirituality manual). Science is similar, but not so similar that when a mathematician stumbles across, for example, a strange binomial sequence, they’ll read it as “Traditional Values are Gorgeous; queers are sinners and abortion is evil” as what might happen if you happen to be someone as mentally retarded as this and actively following an ancient book.

This idea is interesting. It tells us two things. One, that religion can be used as a device for evil or good and since it doesn’t rely on any tangible or rational evidence, can remain unquestioned. Two: that when the pope declares that homosexuality is on the same level as Climate Change as far as threats to humanity is concerned, he’s probably been locked indoors too long. But then again, this is hardly surprising. The pope has always been rabidly homophobic, anti-abortion, absolutist and generally fairly senile.

Interesting, then, that lobby groups such as the Christian Family Association of Australia think that the teachings of Jesus were avidly against homosexuality, abortion and equality. Just look at this diagram here:

Empirical and well-researched. Who could possibly argue?

Unfortunately the diagram is not parody. These people earnestly think that Internet Censorship is carrying out God’s will (ironic, really, seeing as the Internet probably didn’t exist in the time of the bible’s writing).

This excellent blog post further explores the alleged misinterpretation of biblical texts well. But is it a misinterpretation?  Surely, bigotry aside, it’s just another take on a certain book? I can find quotes for and against homophobia; and although the overwhelming majority of religious Christians feel animosity to homosexuals (and secularism), it doesn’t mean the bible is necessary homophobic…if you choose to read it that way. It’d be interesting to see how much overlap or association religiousness has with homophobia (and abortion, etc). Does anyone think that an overlap as such is significant?

Desperately low on ideas, evidence and braincells, the anti-abortionists turn to a replica of Jesus for some assistance; that assistance is yet to come.

And this my main gripe with dogma and religion: if people follow it so devoutly and if it is so contradictory, conflated and confused then, then there can be untold consequences. The Taliban, for example (an extreme one too), distort the message of the Koran to brainwash their militia. The question, then, is would they be able to do it as successfully or as passionately without the Koran? Could they be an irreligious militia and be just as effective? If so, then what’s the point in following (and subsequently misreading) the Koran anyway? And how might one vote differently if they were religious? They would have a different slant on things perhaps.
To conclude, I think it’s ridiculous to follow dogma as a way to guide one’s life. But I think you all know that already.

What’s the big deal with Jesus?

Well…I admittedly don’t know much about Jesus; but in today’s world of arbitrary-person worshipping (there’s another deity called Obama with similar worshipping followers), it’s fairly important to know about him. Or so I’m told.

Was he a bastard? A doctor? What were his qualifications?

In truth, this is just the first post where I’m too tired to think of anything remotely erudite or sagacious to say and thus resort to crude attacks on religious figureheads as such.