I stumbled across this interesting opinion piece recently:
I didn’t mean cultural relativism was the cause of the problem in Islam. I meant it was the source of weakness for the West in dealing with the problems of Islam. There is this quaint view that’s coalesced over the last 30 years especially that you mustn’t challenge anybody’s cultural mores, and in tandem with that, if you live a model left-wing lifestyle, that other cultures will be amazed at how open minded and hip you are, and reward your “respect” with a reciprocal respect for your own lifestyle, culture and ideology and – as a result – we will all live in a multicultural paradise.
I think the author has a valid point. However, it’s not a very pragmatic point. If you enter a meeting to strategise about immigration, assimilation and population change with the quoted premise above, it’s unlikely you’ll get far. It might not be fair or equal to either culture to be more tolerant than them…but it’s certainly causes less friction.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I’ve consistently said that religion and politics are perfectly analogous. Nat and Kath disagree. I’m not sure about Oskar…though I’m sure he’d disagree with me just for the fun of it.
But what of this analogy? Well, according to Nat (who believes in Determinism…which states that our ideas and opinions are dependent on our environment and our experiences – so therefore we can’t be blamed for our values), this is all a bunch of bollocks. And besides, religion doesn’t cause externalities so we shouldn’t bother with ‘em. Leave those bible bashers in peace! But I beg to differ.
Firstly, let’s put aside the determinist ideas espoused by Nat (and Kath…but purely for convenience sake I suspect). It’s a grey area that’s undergoing immense debate (and will be posted on shortly, we hope). Here are the strong similarities of religion and politics:
Religion and politics both form a basis for one’s own opinions on any variety of subjects. Euthanasia – for example – is a topic that usually results in some sort of moral high ground being claimed. In such a debate, someone else’s politics and religious identity becomes quite clear. Religion is often intertwined with other issues. To say there are no externalities that exist with personal faith is either blissfully ignorant or disingenuous.
Politics and religion both dictate our way of life. Religion is more direct, with commandments such as “you mustn’t eat pork” whilst politics is more indirect…but still plays a major role. Vegetarianism – more often than not – is a political statement as one example.
There are many political parties based on religion. The Christian Democrat Party and Family First are two examples I can think of off the top of my head. There are also plenty of theocracies in the world – I’m thinking Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel (though Israel is certainly the most democratic of all the theocracies) and the Vatican.
Religion is often associated with conflict. Think of the Israeli/Palestinian Crisis, the Northern Ireland ‘Troubles’ and the Indian/Pakistani animosity as classic examples. Obviously religion isn’t the sole factor in such bloodshed, but I think you’ll find it plays a significant role. The Hamas dogma explicitly calls for the destruction of all Jews. Within Israel, the most critical factor in the segregationist social paradigm is religion – except in Haifa, a city in Northern Israel. Does anyone seriously think these conflicts would be just as intense if we removed religion as a factor?
Atheism, as an ideology, is antagonistic to the Abrahamic religions in close similarity to the way The Greens are antagonistic to the Liberal party. Their ideologies have very few, if any, similarities. Atheism states ‘there is almost certainly no god and religion is stupid dogma’ whereas the Abrahamic religions state ‘there is a divine tyrant in the cosmos that will wreak vengeance against sinners’. The Liberal party would demand that we ‘lower taxes for corporations and free up land in the outer suburbs for urban sprawl’, whereas The Greens would want to ‘curb urban sprawl and place greater taxes on housing to account for other costs’. The interplay betwen these various ideas is quite parallel and analogous.
To say their dress code isn't due to a pious belief is inaccurate...
Posted by nlthinking 
Posted by nlthinking 
Posted by nlthinking 
