Home // Posts tagged "religion"

More on Offence

So. My wife and I were in Sydney today, and happened upon this: Anti-Islam film protests erupt in Sydney | SBS World News

The protest was against the US, in response to the recent anti-Islam film produced by some right-wing Christian group in the USA. Unfortunately instead of reacting in an adult fashion we have statements like this:

“They have no right to mock our prophet.”

And banners like this:

“Behead all those who insult the Prophet”

Offence. Entitlement. Arrogance.

Religion.

Let me be clear: while I truly do believe our species would be better off without religion, and I have absolutely no automatic respect for any religion, if someone wishes to believe in one, I recognise that it is their business, and not mine.

However…

The fact that they believe something absolutely does not mean that they are entitled to others’ respect for that belief, or to have that belief protected from mockery or insult. Yes, it may well be rude and uncouth to go around insulting someone’s religion, but personally I think calling for the mocker to be beheaded is a whole other level of uncouth.

I think the level of arrogance and entitlement in the notion that one’s religious belief must be respected, and never mocked – purely because it is one’s religious belief – is pretty ugly.

And honestly, of all the things about the US and its behaviour in the Middle East and towards the Muslim world in general that are seriously worth protesting, they pick on some idiotic group of Christian fundies mocking Mohammed? Rly? That’s what’s most important? Makes it kind of easy to distract from the real issues then, doesn’t it? Draw a bad cartoon of Mohammed or something, and then all the other actually bad stuff gets ignored.

Because mocking.

Just further confirms my opinion that we’d all be better off without any religions.

Breaking: Fred Nile is a Loathsome Little Weasel

How’s this for revolting? 

Fred Nile crows about Christopher Hitchens’ death

 

Can anyone else see nothing so much as a kindergartener with tongue out, chanting “you’re in heee-eeell! Nah nah nah naaaaaah naaaaaaah!”?

 

Dick. Little bloody weasel.

 

Sorry, unkind to weasels.

 

And dicks.

The Definitely Not Atheist or Darwinist Nazis

As someone who accepts the reality that there is almost certainly not a god, and likewise accepts as basically fact, the exceeding well-supported scientific Theory of evolution by natural selection, largely as described by Darwin, I find it pretty unpleasant to be likened to fascist mass-murderers, as people like Josef Ratzinger are wont to do.

Of course, this contention – that the Nazis were atheists, and that “Darwinism”* had some role in the justification of the Holocaust – is rather widely accepted. Interestingly, it’s completely false.

Coel Hellier has written a very thorough, clear, logical, and fair examination of this, and has demonstrated most clearly that in fact the Nazi ideology was at base religious and creationist. This is a longish read, but so very worthwhile. It shows very clearly just how atheist the Nazis and their ideology were not, and just how based in the Theory of evolution by natural selection they were not.

That of course won’t stop various religious and creationist types from dragging out this deceased ex-horse and flogging it some more.

“This labelling of the Nazis as “atheist” is common among the religious, despite being — as shown above — the opposite of the truth.”

The “opposite of the truth”…

…that would be…

Oh yes: a lie.

Now, before anyone calls Godwin on me here (although someone on Twitter has done so already), let me make the point that Ratty and others like him are the ones who’ve “Godwinned” this argument. This is merely a refutation, and any refutation of the claim that the Nazis were atheist and “Darwinist” necessarily involves demonstration of the opposite: that they were in fact Christians and creationists. There is no way to avoid mentioning the Nazis when refuting a claim involving the Nazis.

Duh. It doesn’t equate to saying that Christians are evil Nazi sympathisers; it’s people like Ratzinger (I honestly forget his popey name) who have actually engaged in slander using the Nazi spectre against those of us who do not believe as he does.

In summary: people who contend that atheism, or acceptance of scientific fact (evolution and natural selection) are a prelude or encouragement to callousness, hatred, and mass murder, are (to appropriate a Tim Minchin phrase) “just fucking silly” – or egregious liars.

I make no comment about the camp into which I think Ratzinger falls….

*By the by, I find it incredible that we use the terms “Darwinist” and “Darwinism” – as though accepting one of the world’s best-supported scientific Theories as being pretty much demonstrable and demonstrated fact, constitutes an “-ism”….

Atheist Announces Date for the Continued Existence of the Universe

Mr Charlie Sprout, avowed atheist and alfalfa enthusiast announced yesterday that he had determined the precise day on which the entire Universe would almost certainly fail to be destroyed by a vengeful god.

“I was tending my shrubs when it came to me” said Mr Sprout in an interview following his announcement. “Not like a revelation, of course; more like … I suppose you could call it something I made up.”

While many, even other atheists, have predicted previously that the universe will indeed continue to exist at some point, Mr Sprout is the first to have set an actual date for the non-extermination of the cosmos.

Asked how he determined when the Apocalypse would not occur, he replied “basically I thought it looked like kind of a neat date to set for this sort of huge non-event. And when I’m right, and the world doesn’t end on 20/11/2011, it’ll be easy for everyone to remember that was the exact day I said it wouldn’t end.”

What I’d Like to Have Written About Fred Nile

Fred Nile, the National President of the Christian Democrat party, is a loathsome little weasel indeed (that’s not what I’d like to have written; it’s what I have written). He is so blindly obsessed with preventing the teaching to children of philosophical discourse about ethics that he has abandoned any pretence of behaving like a politician should – even bearing in mind my admittedly cynical view that every politician in existence is little better than pond scum when it comes to ethical or principled behaviour.

Anyway…

In a move akin to the way Pharmac in New Zealand will refuse to subsidise one medication unless the company drops the price on a wholly unrelated product, Nile is withholding support for a piece of Industrial Relations legislation. He is hoping to use his support as leverage to force the NSW State Government to repeal the law establishing ethics classes as an alternative to Scripture classes.

Weasel.

There are many things I would like to say to and about Nile – and I would happily say them to his face. However, Dr Simon Longstaff, executive director of the St James Ethics Centre in an opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald, has put everything I would like to say in much more eloquent form, with not one single expletive (which I personally find most impressive, as Fred Nile is most expletogenic).

I particularly liked the way Longstaff elucidated the ethical principles Nile is displaying:

“The ethical lessons on offer are clear: that might is right, that it’s OK to force another man to get his hands dirty, that the ends justify the means. These are old lessons that we, within the community, have been asked to swallow whole – time and time again. Where will it stop? Perhaps now. Perhaps on this issue.”

Fred Nile, go the hell away. Please. Go back into your little desert-bound bronze age immoral closed-minded, blinkered, fear-ridden worldview, and leave the 21st Century the hell alone.

Most especially: leave my kids alone!

Statistical data collected by Statpress SEOlution (blogcraft).