First off, my apologies to all the sane religious people out there in the world, of which, I am sure, there are many. You are a sane religious person if you understand that faith and spirituality are some of the most personal choices an individual can make, and that it is not something you force feed on everyone around you. You have my respect. If you were to start a conversation on theology, I would actually sit down and listen. Chances are I’d learn something new.
There are, however, people of your ilk who I fucking hate. I really do. These are the ones who need to inform the entire neighbourhood that they are praying by fixing loud speakers outside their place of worship, the ones who have to bring their religion to the roads, passing leaflets to passers-by, announcing miracles, second comings and impending apocalypses, disturbing the peace with your fucking chariot festivals and parades, and viewing all the important things in life through your half-arsed, narrow minded religious lens.
What would God want me to do?
A religious person actually once told me that she asks herself that question when deciding on important issues such as pre-marital sex; God wouldn’t want it so she was saving her holiest of hol(i)es until she got married. And even then she was going to have sex only for procreation purposes, not for pleasure. This is the logic of sheep – that too belonging to a flock whose shepherd is MIA for a pretty fucking long time.
Today I came across this site. This so-called Net Authority is an organization dedicated to the removal of offensive content on the internet. Just when I thought it was safe to spend time online away from such maniacs in real life, religious bastards have made their presence felt on the internet. This particular site’s mission is based on good old fashioned Christian values (I am told that there are Islamic and Jewish versions as well although I am yet to find them) and like all good Christians they’ve enshrined their rules in the form of five commandments.
Here’s where it gets really good:
1. Thou shalt not post pornographic material.
There is a common misconception that pornography is limited purely to images or textual descriptions of an explicit sexual nature. This is not the case. Anything that can evoke impure thoughts in the mind of the beholder is pornographic.
2. Thou shalt not post hateful material.
Any material that promotes or inspires hatred or violence towards any other person or group of people is strictly forbidden.
3. Thou shalt not post blasphemous material.
Any material that would lead one astray from the righteous path of the one true God must not be permitted on the Internet. These days children are gaining access to the Internet at younger and younger ages—a time when they are most vulnerable and susceptible to blasphemous viewpoints and suggestions.
4. Thou shalt not post materials of an offensive political nature.
5. Thou shalt not post materials concerning bestiality, including interracial relationships.
God did not intend for different species or races to intermingle sexually. Any content that contradicts this natural law, directly or indirectly, is strictly forbidden.
When I first read this, I was convinced that it was parody or satirical in nature, but a friend in the US assures me that it’s very much real. The voice of the religious right has steadily been on the increase in the country since George Bush was elected and now their cross hairs are trained firmly on the internet. They feel it’s their duty to clean up the internet in the name of god.
The commandments themselves are rather comical, although I found commandments 2, 4 and 5 even more so. Commandment number 2 says: “Thou shalt not post hateful material. Any material that promotes or inspires hatred or violence towards any other person or group of people is strictly forbidden.”
While commandment number 4, rather ambiguously says: “Thou shalt not post materials concerning bestiality, including interracial relationships. God did not intend for different species or races to intermingle sexually. Any content that contradicts this natural law, directly or indirectly, is strictly forbidden.”
Holy crap, Batman. In the space of two commandments they go from demanding an end to the posting of online hate material to implying that interracial relationships are on par with bestiality. I am looking for two words; one starts with ‘H’ and the other with ‘R’.
Next, we move on to commandment number 5 that states: “Thou shalt not post materials of an offensive political nature.” Presumably, god votes Republican? Ergo, no one is to campaign against, make fun of, accuse, or tarnish the reputations of Republican politicians. Even if they happen to be paedophiles or morons who lack the management skills to run a fucking household let alone the most powerful country in the world.
The site has now created badges – graphical buttons – for webmasters of offending sites. The buttons are to be displayed prominently on the site in question until all offending content is removed from the site. I’ve decided to place a button on my blog as well, but with a twist.
Here’s the button:
A big thank you to our own Darwin for the inspiration behind this button. If you click on the link, it takes you to Richard Dawkin’s site. In the always wise words of John McClane, “yippee-ki-yay, motherfucker.”
For the sake of discussion, talk about your religious beliefs, experiences with retarded religious people and how idiots like the people behind Net Authority give all religious people a bad name.
31 Comments
June 24, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Religious people are not any more retarded than atheists are.
The idea that interracial relationships = violation of natural law view belongs to an extremely fringe group of extremists who are probably just a handful in number. I’m sure you’ll as many atheists and humanists who share the same view. It’s amusing you choose this group as an example and juxtapose it with your query of whether all religious people are equally retarded.
Certain religions if accepted to be true must impact on the believers views on public policy and utility. They commit believers to a worldview that is exclusive. The question you have to ask is as to whether secularism is any more inclusive and tolerant than religion is. Now that’s a good debate. The title question on this post is frankly ridiculous.
June 24, 2007 at 5:38 pm
“I’m sure you’ll as many atheists and humanists who share the same view. ”
Point me examples.
“The question you have to ask is as to whether secularism is any more inclusive and tolerant than religion is.”
I believe it is far more tolerant.
“Now that’s a good debate. ”
By all means begin.
“The title question on this post is frankly ridiculous”.
About as ridiculous as hearing of eternal damnation, Aadhavan.
I’ll also point you to the conclusion of the blog post where I clearly state, “and how idiots like the people behind Net Authority give all religious people a bad name.” I am pointing fingers at this small minority of extremists.
June 24, 2007 at 5:57 pm
hey i’d like to know who you are referring to in these lines “There are, however, people of your ilk who I fucking hate. I really do. These are the ones who need to inform the entire neighbourhood that they are praying by fixing loud speakers outside their place of worship, the ones who have to bring their religion to the roads”
June 24, 2007 at 6:03 pm
All.
My neighbourhood has a International Society of Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) centre, a church, a Buddhist temple and a Mosque near by.
There have been days when all four have what appears to be a competition on who the loudest is.
Necessary? I think not.
June 24, 2007 at 6:20 pm
“Point me examples.”
All those atheist neo nazis who believe in the purity of the aryan race for instance. fringe radicals, yes, same as your examples. The point was that you choose a bunch of wacko radicals and then pose a question as to whether generalization is possible, as if it was a question worthy of debate. childish.
“I believe it is far more tolerant.”
Tell that to the Muslim kids who can’t wear their headscarves to school in france, all in the name of secularism. and kids who get their mic cut off because they mentioned Jesus Christ as one of their inspirations during their valedictory address.
“By all means begin.”
I already have. Go do some reading up on the whole debate on tolerance and secularism. on a logical note, if the inclusivist excludes the exclusivist, doesn’t that make him an exclusivist?
“About as ridiculous as hearing of eternal damnation, Aadhavan.”
No, eternal damnation cannot be proved, neither can it be disproved. Your whole line of argument through suggestion has been dismantled pretty rapidly. World of a difference.
June 25, 2007 at 1:33 am
bestiality=interracial…hehe…thats hilarious in a very disturbing way. Most of my family is going straight to hell…well I am as well I guess…oh well..
June 25, 2007 at 5:00 am
(Copied from http://www.netauthority.org/submit.shtml)
“Example #2: Children’s Dinosaur Stories. You might think that a site that contains stories about dinosaurs for children would be innocent—but let’s stop and think about that for a moment. If you read the bible (you should, it’s great!) you know that dinosaurs never actually existed, and that God put those fossils and bones there to test our faith in Him.”
– Hmm now thats a theory. I was wondering how all those damn things started turning up everywhere.
“Example #3: Family Farm Website
…….
! But imagine that some of the photos of animals included the animal genitalia in plain site. This is hardly something that young children should be looking at, and especially not to be associated with the joy of viewing a fun website.”
– True, you d never know of some people you get these days. I think they should be properly dressed too. Imagine you got a dog in the house and its … you know thing… is in plain site for everyones view.
“Example #1: Baby Photos Website. Everybody loves looking at babies! A baby photo website with pictures of babies from all over the world would be a wonderful attraction. There is, however, a common misconception that portraying infants in the nude is an acceptable practice, since the genitalia is not yet well-formed enough to be considered profane. This is far from the case! You and I may not get impure thoughts from looking at innocent babies, but there are perverts out there who do! By providing pictures of babies at all, and especially in the nude, this fictional website would only be fueling these perverts’ desires and making society a more dangerous place to live in. This website should certainly be added to our database as a pornography offender.”
– True again. Some people always see the world through genitals.
Oh and by the way Library of Congress is also a should-be-banned website. I always thought the bastards were upto something changing the history and all! All those books in one place and they can do whatever they want to them!!!
June 25, 2007 at 5:14 am
faith and spirituality are some of the most personal choices an individual can make, and that it is not something you force feed on everyone around you
Religion is something an individual has to understand themselves and make the choice to follow, and a religion should give this freedom to its followers and should also tolerate and respect other religions too. If it tries to make people accept it by threats, then there’s no point in it. The people may just accept it outwardly out of fright, but never truly accepts it. Religions should teach tolerance first.
I don’t think any religion started out like this. Different people started giving different interpretations to the teachings, and started preaching it to the people according to that. Some may have done it to realize their own personal goals. They twist the interpretations to justify their own actions. Egomaniacs, megalomaniac or whatever use religion to get their points across and ultimately do and get whatever they want. What they preach is so powerful that people are drawn to it and finally end up doing whatever they ask for.
State and religion should and must be separate. The state must allow people the freedom to practice any religion they want (unless it involves human scarifies and sex with underage kids, or any similar things). Similarly religion should keep out of politics. But know politicians are more and more using the religion card to win votes, and it’s happening all over the world.
June 25, 2007 at 6:20 am
Has anybody killed in the name of secularism?
June 25, 2007 at 6:41 am
Aadhavan,
I think you rather missing the point here… Theena is just expressing his frustration at the hypocrisy of organised religion. True he may not have crossed all his Ts and dotted all his Is but then this is his blog and if you read his comments and previous posts you’ll realise he’s quite a sane guy and that he’s not really generalising. You delving into semantics isn’t going to get you anywhere.
June 25, 2007 at 7:26 am
I know of those who have killed and are still killing in the name of Democracy which advocates Secularism.
June 25, 2007 at 7:29 am
“The point was that you choose a bunch of wacko radicals and then pose a question as to whether generalization is possible, as if it was a question worthy of debate. childish.”
Again, at the risk of repetition, I made it quite clear that I am referring to the extremists among religious people (hence the “most” in my heading). It is a rant specifically pointing the religious wackos of all denominations, and the heading poses a question which is rhetorical and rant-y. You seem to think of it as an essay worthy of intellectual debate.
“Tell that to the Muslim kids who can’t wear their headscarves to school in france, all in the name of secularism. and kids who get their mic cut off because they mentioned Jesus Christ as one of their inspirations during their valedictory address.”
A secular society is one that is far less complicated. One rule to all religions, no exceptions. I’ve always wondered this though: why would a person who wishes to openly practice his/her religion, be in favour of religion impacting on, in your words, “views on public policy and utility”, wish to settle down in a country that is very much secular? That doesn’t make any sense to me.
I, as an agnostic bordering on atheistic beliefs, wouldn’t want to settle down in a country where religion and state are not separate. Nor would I, if I were a parent, want my children be exposed to nonsensical things such creationism and “intelligent design” at school (which is happening in schools in America’s Bible Belt areas). Therefore, I wouldn’t settle down in such countries.
Going by the same rationale, I would think that overly religious people could think twice before deciding to move to secular nations. If they took that into account before moving into a secular nation, why bitch and whine? If the majority is following a set of rules, why should the minority have it any different?
“Go do some reading up on the whole debate on tolerance and secularism.”
Thank you for the advice. I will.
“on a logical note, if the inclusivist excludes the exclusivist, doesn’t that make him an exclusivist?”
It makes him a relativistic inclusivist.
“No, eternal damnation cannot be proved, neither can it be disproved.”
Oh I see, you’ve proven beyond a doubt that the heading of this rant is ridiculous? Good show.
By the way, sorry for having to resort to comment moderation and approval process. It seems like I’ve attracted a number of unsavory comments since this blog post.
Azrael, I agree.
Deane, interesting question. I am going to look it up.
June 25, 2007 at 7:38 am
Dictator, thank you. Finally.
Freethinker: Link?
June 25, 2007 at 8:47 am
of course. they are retarded. and worst is that we have to handle them like retards or they get so upset. like retards.
June 25, 2007 at 10:08 am
dictator, I was just pointing out the ridiculous nature of the title in relation to the rest of the post. I’m all for rants about organized religion.
“It is a rant specifically pointing the religious wackos of all denominations, and the heading poses a question which is rhetorical and rant-y. You seem to think of it as an essay worthy of intellectual debate.”
I’m glad to hear you think there can be no intellectual debate on this post. If it is your intention to have a go at all sorts of obscurantist fringe minorities so removed from the mainstream that we hardly hear of them then that’s your prerogative. There are lost of crazy wackos all over the place, you must have a ton of material for future blog posts.
“I’ve always wondered this though: why would a person who wishes to openly practice his/her religion, be in favour of religion impacting on, in your words, “views on public policy and utility”, wish to settle down in a country that is very much secular? That doesn’t make any sense to me.”
It doesn’t make sense to you because presumably the idea of universal human rights doesn’t make sense to you. If I live in another country and got there because I’m looking for a better, more prosperous life I should have a right to practice and express my religion, no matter what the majority thinks about it, as long as I’m not harming anyone. Those Muslims who escaped resource rich Middle Eastern countries because of the racist foreign policies of the west wreaking havoc on their own homelands have a right to wear anything they want to. Just because the majority doesn’t want to give you your rights doesn’t mean shit. If a Tamil kid went to a western country and was told that she would be punished if she were to wear a sari, do you think that’d be a problem. Think before you spout all sorts of racist, white supremacist trash all over your blog.
“If the majority is following a set of rules, why should the minority have it any different?”
Wouldn’t that justify forced circumcision for all non Muslims in Muslim majority countries?
Oh, one rule to all religions. Not complicated. Ban them all without discrimination. What was that about tolerance?
“It makes him a relativistic inclusivist.”
What does that even mean?
June 25, 2007 at 12:03 pm
“I’m glad to hear you think there can be no intellectual debate on this post.”
Great. So why are you still going on about the insinuations behind this heading?
“If it is your intention to have a go at all sorts of obscurantist fringe minorities so removed from the mainstream that we hardly hear of them then that’s your prerogative.”
Religious extremists are removed from the mainstream? I just gave you an example in America’s Bible belt.
Look up on the late Jarry Falwell, a fundamentalist Christian pastor, who yielded huge political influence. Yes, he is just one among, admittedly, few, but “removed from the mainstream”? I think not.
In Palestine, Hamas won the January 2006 elections. Removed from the mainstream? Nay.
In India, the BJP is increasingly appealing to Hindu Nationalists in order to gain power. Removed from the mainstream? No.
Need I even bring up Sri Lanka?
“There are lost of crazy wackos all over the place, you must have a ton of material for future blog posts.”
Oh my secret is out! I plead guilty.
“It doesn’t make sense to you because presumably the idea of universal human rights doesn’t make sense to you.”
Question: When the international law clashes with domestic law, what takes precedence, in your opinion?
“If I live in another country and got there because I’m looking for a better, more prosperous life I should have a right to practice and express my religion, no matter what the majority thinks about it, as long as I’m not harming anyone.”
Okay, so a Christian settles down in Saudi Arabia and during Christmas Eve gets quite drunk and passionately kisses his gay lover. He does so in semi-public and is spotted by authorities. Care to imagine the fate of these two men? Or are they actually “harming anyone”? Do they need to conform to these strict religious rules? Does international law become defunct when the domestic law is so intimately entwined with religion as it is the case in Saudi Arabia?
Funny how strict Muslims demand people follow the rules in their countries, but throw up a fit when they move to less strict, more secular countries.
“Those Muslims who escaped resource rich Middle Eastern countries because of the racist foreign policies of the west wreaking havoc on their own homelands have a right to wear anything they want to. Just because the majority doesn’t want to give you your rights doesn’t mean shit.”
The only part of that I agree with is that the foreign policies of USA and UK are the reasons why the Middle East is as troubled as it is. The rest of it I don’t. Here’s why.
By your rationale, these aforementioned gay dudes in Saudi Arabia can hold hands, go to a pub (heck, are there pubs in Saudi?), sit at a quiet table, get drunk, kiss, without any fear of having a body part amputated. Your rationale suggests that a non-Muslim woman walk around Iran without having to wear the head scarf and clothing covering as much of her body as possible.
“Think before you spout all sorts of racist, white supremacist trash all over your blog.”
Here I am harking on about the fundamentalist Christians in the religious right in America (which is overwhelmingly white), and you accuse me of being a racist and a white supremacist at that. How did you work that out, man?
Think before you assume you are some sort of activist for minority rights.
“Oh, one rule to all religions. Not complicated. Ban them all without discrimination. What was that about tolerance?”
Who said anything about banning? I am arguing for the separation of religion from state.
June 25, 2007 at 1:52 pm
“Look up on the late Jarry Falwell, a fundamentalist Christian pastor, who yielded huge political influence. Yes, he is just one among, admittedly, few, but “removed from the mainstream”? I think not.”
I know about Jerry Falwell and knew what he stood for. I don’t agree with his views, neither do i share his theology. If you want to talk about Jerry Falwell, well and good. The group you picked however as your focus group is so far right of even Falwell lunatics that it looks like you just went for the most radical, obscurantist group you could find. Religious bigotry has its problems with intolerance as does secularist bigotry. Europe is full of secularist bigots.
“When the international law clashes with domestic law, what takes precedence, in your opinion?”
Depends on whether the country is under a monist regime or a dualist one. But regardless of what your regime is, international law remains binding on states. If they don’t ensure that their laws match up with their international obligations, they are not living up to their promises and are morally in the wrong, especially if the obligation deals with human rights. I can recommend some reading if you want.
“He does so in semi-public and is spotted by authorities. Care to imagine the fate of these two men? Or are they actually “harming anyone”? Do they need to conform to these strict religious rules? Does international law become defunct when the domestic law is so intimately entwined with religion as it is the case in Saudi Arabia?”
Saudi Arabia brazenly violates all sorts of human rights. What’s your point? Because the Sauds are such bastards secularists should be bastards too. Regardless of the bigotry of the rulers of the countries that Middle Easterners are from, they deserve protection of their rights anyway and anywhere. If you can’t agree with this we’re on different wavelengths. But if you disagree, your position your position cannot assume a vantage point from where criticism of the widescale religious persecution of non Muslims in Muslim countries is possible. After all the Muslims are in the majority. And Sinhalese would be well within their rights to treat all minorities like shit and all religious people can kick the crap out of the minority atheists in the country. You might want to think about what you’re saying.
“Here I am harking on about the fundamentalist Christians in the religious right in America (which is overwhelmingly white), and you accuse me of being a racist and a white supremacist at that. How did you work that out, man?”
Simple. You say that the rights of minorities in Europe can be trampled on by the majority. It doesn’t take Einstein to do the math.
“Who said anything about banning?”
You talked about treating all religions equally, My point is that unless you have specific protection, equal treatment can mean equally shit treatment.
June 25, 2007 at 6:20 pm
“I know about Jerry Falwell and knew what he stood for. I don’t agree with his views, neither do i share his theology. If you want to talk about Jerry Falwell, well and good. The group you picked however as your focus group is so far right of even Falwell lunatics that it looks like you just went for the most radical, obscurantist group you could find.”
I think you’ll find that Jerry Falwell shares pretty much the same political spectrum as the extremists that I chose. Refer this article from Google’s cache. (http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:gGDsYzdlzFgJ:www.thenation.com/doc/20070528/blumenthal+segregationist+%22jerry+falwell%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us) and (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_falwell#Social_and_political_views).
“Religious bigotry has its problems with intolerance as does secularist bigotry. Europe is full of secularist bigots.”
I’ll concede on the fact that there is the possibility of bigotry from secularists. But I won’t buy into the “Europe is full of secularist bigots” statement unless I see hard numbers and/or credible reports. You mentioned I have to read up on secularism and tolerance. Now is a good time for links or suggestions for reading material. And that statement is a massive generalization in itself: the debate between pro and anti secularism schools of thought is still pretty much alive and kicking in Europe as well – if anything it shows that they are as divided as we are on this issue.
“If they don’t ensure that their laws match up with their international obligations, they are not living up to their promises and are morally in the wrong, especially if the obligation deals with human rights.”
Right. I totally agree.
“I can recommend some reading if you want.”
I have Malcom M. Shaw’s International Law text book, purchased for my International Law module at the BCIS. Is that sufficient? I’ve been meaning to read it properly without pressure of exams hanging over my head.
“Saudi Arabia brazenly violates all sorts of human rights. What’s your point?”
My point is that you are quick to hark on about a secular nation’s (France) refusal to give into domestic Islamic pressure, but you conveniently forgot to see the flip side of your argument: a theocratic society where the discrimination is more blatant and far more harmful.
“Because the Sauds are such bastards secularists should be bastards too. Regardless of the bigotry of the rulers of the countries that Middle Easterners are from, they deserve protection of their rights anyway and anywhere.”
Nor am I suggesting that secularists be such bastards and employ tit-for-tat policies. I am merely saying that you don’t go into a foreign country and demand your religion be given special privileges. Doing so will mean that the country, France in this case, has to undo two centuries of secularism. And for what? One minority?
And it’s not like France has forbidden the practice of any religion. It has merely restricted the expression of religion – all religion including denominations of Christianity – in public and kept religion well away from matters of national interest. Their (any French citizen) right to practice the religion of choice is still being upheld.
“If you can’t agree with this we’re on different wavelengths. But if you disagree, your position your position cannot assume a vantage point from where criticism of the widescale religious persecution of non Muslims in Muslim countries is possible. After all the Muslims are in the majority.”
Eh? Getting a bit carried away their, aren’t we? I agree with your assertion that international obligations need to be conformed to, and that domestic law and international law should be complimentary so as to not allow clashes between the two frameworks.
But, correct me if I am wrong, is that pragmatic? A theocratic nation would be as unwilling to tweak its laws to compliment international law, as a secular nation would be unwilling to tweak its laws. How do you overhaul a core principle of your domestic law so that you can be in line with in international law? I am not saying that this shouldn’t be accepted; I am saying that it’s not pragmatic, at least not in the short/medium term.
In such a situation, you hope for a compromise – a society were everyone is allowed to practice their religion of choice in private, but keeping it well away from national issues. It’s not perfect, but a compromise. And a heck of a lot better than the system the Saudis and other theocratic societies have in place.
“And Sinhalese would be well within their rights to treat all minorities like shit and all religious people can kick the crap out of the minority atheists in the country.”
Again, you are creating a mountain out of a molehill.
“You might want to think about what you’re saying. “
I did.
“Simple. You say that the rights of minorities in Europe can be trampled on by the majority. It doesn’t take Einstein to do the math”
Perhaps Einstein would have pointed out that you worked out your equation based upon an assumption. Show me exactly where I said or implied “the rights of minorities in Europe can be trampled on by the majority.”
“You talked about treating all religions equally, My point is that unless you have specific protection, equal treatment can mean equally shit treatment.”
And my point is that by allowing the practice of a religion, they are equating all religions with that of the majority. And like the religion of the majority, the religion(s) of the minority are not afforded any special privileges nor are they allowed to influence matters of national interest.
What do you propose for this specific protection?
Strange as it may seem, I am actually enjoying this discussion. Thanks, Aadhavan.
June 26, 2007 at 2:54 am
Look, I know this is ranty, unintellectual and rhetorical, but the idea that Falwell is as wacko as the guys you cited just isn’t so. Flawell had policies and said things you and I don’t like. He never said anything that remotely advocated the banning of interracial marriages and never advocated positions that involved the widescale denial of fundamental human rights protections to anyone. Notwithstanding the rantiness, perhaps a little perspective and honesty will help.
Dude, France is full of bigots because they don’t allow Muslim kids to wear headscarves to school. It’s the view of the majority! That’s mainstream politics. And then you have all sots of fringe lunatics that you like to cover in your blog.
You seem to think that free expression of one’s ideas and beliefs can be curtailed just because the majority feels that such restriction is in sync with their heritage. That’s as ridiculous as it gets. It amounts to the same as saying that just because a society has adopted discriminatory, bigoted policies they should be able to continue along their merry way, unrestrained by the idea of universal rights. Good for you, but don’t say a word against Saudi because beheading people for denying that Allah is God is also a habit they have adopted over decades. Do you get this point or am I to give up? I, on the other hand can criticise the Sauds all I want if they don’t live up to their HR obligations because that standard applies across the board.
As to whether living up to all HR obligations are practical, I’ll answer in the affirmative, Go through the ICCPR and tell me which right you don’t want to be applied to you and which right is impossible to implement. At the very least, there is an obligation not to introduce new policies and implement plans that are violative of Covenant rights, which is what happened in France.
Btw, what is relativist inclusivism?
June 26, 2007 at 8:38 am
“Look, I know this is ranty, unintellectual and rhetorical, but the idea that Falwell is as wacko as the guys you cited just isn’t so. Flawell had policies and said things you and I don’t like. He never said anything that remotely advocated the banning of interracial marriages and never advocated positions that involved the widescale denial of fundamental human rights protections to anyone. Notwithstanding the rantiness, perhaps a little perspective and honesty will help.”
So I am assuming Falwell’s calling the Civil Rights Movement the “Civil Wrongs Movement” is not anything to get worked up about? Or that he was a supporter of segregation? What was that of me being a white supremacist?
“Dude, France is full of bigots because they don’t allow Muslim kids to wear headscarves to school. It’s the view of the majority! That’s mainstream politics. And then you have all sots of fringe lunatics that you like to cover in your blog. ”
Dude, I realize that it is part of mainstream French politics, but you are going on about something relatively harmless like scarves when there are theocratic societies that are far worse. I am just asking for some balance in your perspective and criticism on secularism, just as you are asking for a balance in my criticism of theocracies. Capisce?
“You seem to think that free expression of one’s ideas and beliefs can be curtailed just because the majority feels that such restriction is in sync with their heritage. ”
I am saying that free expression of one’s religious ideas need not be public and that it should be away from matters important to the state.
“That’s as ridiculous as it gets. It amounts to the same as saying that just because a society has adopted discriminatory, bigoted policies they should be able to continue along their merry way, unrestrained by the idea of universal rights. ”
I am all for the idea of universal rights and my perspective is hardly the perfect solution, but it’s not as discriminatory or bigoted as it sounds. Discriminatory or bigotry implies that the beliefs of one religion/group are favoured over the beliefs of another. That is not the case.
“Good for you, but don’t say a word against Saudi because beheading people for denying that Allah is God is also a habit they have adopted over decades. ”
And now we are going around in circles. If you are outraged at Muslims not being allowed to wear scarves in France, why are you not just as outraged at the belittling of other religions in Islamic theocracies? A tad unfair in your criticism, don’t you think?
“Do you get this point or am I to give up? ”
Do you get my point? Or am I to assume that we’ve arrived at a stalemate? Either you don’t get what I am saying or I don’t get what you are saying.
“I, on the other hand can criticise the Sauds all I want if they don’t live up to their HR obligations because that standard applies across the board.”
My point, once again, is that a secular nation is earning more of your ire than a theocratic nation that has a far worse HR record.
“As to whether living up to all HR obligations are practical, I’ll answer in the affirmative, Go through the ICCPR and tell me which right you don’t want to be applied to you and which right is impossible to implement. ”
Again, I am all for international human rights. I am saying that there are pragmatic issues to be considered. You seem to think that France ought to overhaul its secular ideology so that there is a free expression of religion in *public*. So why aren’t you equally vocal about a theocratic society that is misguided with their beliefs, and where any religion, other than Islam in this case, is belittled?
“At the very least, there is an obligation not to introduce new policies and implement plans that are violative of Covenant rights, which is what happened in France. ”
Again, I agree in principle.
“Btw, what is relativist inclusivism?”
It means that unknown set of beliefs maybe Absolute Truth, but that no living individual knows all Absolute Truth. A relativistic inclusivist doesn’t exclude the exclusivist. Instead, he takes the words of an exclusivist with a huge grain of salt.
By the way, I’d like some recommendations on reading material on International Law (other than Malcolm N Shaw’s text book) and reading on secularism and tolerance.
June 26, 2007 at 5:20 pm
“So I am assuming Falwell’s calling the Civil Rights Movement the “Civil Wrongs Movement” is not anything to get worked up about? Or that he was a supporter of segregation?”
Come on. A little honesty never hurt anyone. He gave up these views in 1965 and was at the time of his death a vocal supporter of civil rights. His 1960’s bigotry was wrong, but he recanted those views decades ago. A little hard to get overly worked up over an idea that the man himself rejected 40 years ago, don’t you think?
“Dude, I realize that it is part of mainstream French politics, but you are going on about something relatively harmless like scarves when there are theocratic societies that are far worse. I am just asking for some balance in your perspective and criticism on secularism”
Dude, I hate Islamic fundamentalist regimes that deny people their rights. I also hate secularist regimes that do the same thing. The Third Reich was pretty secular and look where it got them. Any sort of bigotry, religious or secular is to be denounced. Come to terms with that and stop throwing red herrings about my unwillingness to call murderous Saud bastards ‘bigots’ and brigands. I already have and will continue to do so. If however I subscribe to your view that societies must value their habits over rights, then there is no room to critique the Sauds. Capiche? It’s really pretty simple. Fairly elementary ethical theory.
“I am saying that free expression of one’s religious ideas need not be public and that it should be away from matters important to the state.”
You should listen to yourself. Free expression of ideas need not be in public!!?? WTF? The whole point of free expression that it is a right to express yourself publicly.
“You seem to think that France ought to overhaul its secular ideology so that there is a free expression of religion in *public*.”
Beautiful, you’ve just admitted explicitly that secular ideology is inconsistent with the human right of free expression. That’s kind of the whole point.
“It means that unknown set of beliefs maybe Absolute Truth, but that no living individual knows all Absolute Truth.”
Is the ‘truth’ that absolute truth is not known fully by any individual also an absolute truth. If it is not possible to know absolute truth, how come you know and assert this ‘truth’?
For starters, read up any of the standard HR Law texts available. Alston and Steiner is fairly good, witha good chapter o cultural relativism. AH Robertson is also worth having a look at.
On secular fundamentalism, I believe a good search engine and a few well selected search terms will do the trick. I think there have been a couple of books out recently, but I haven’t really got my hands on any.
June 26, 2007 at 7:07 pm
“Come on. A little honesty never hurt anyone. He gave up these views in 1965 and was at the time of his death a vocal supporter of civil rights. His 1960’s bigotry was wrong, but he recanted those views decades ago. A little hard to get overly worked up over an idea that the man himself rejected 40 years ago, don’t you think?”
I am assuming that you aren’t aware of his rather colourful comments following the September 11 attacks. You can see the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_8dSnKiaD4
If you can’t see the video due to whatever reason, here’s the quote: “I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen.” Rejected 40 years ago?
“The Third Reich was pretty secular and look where it got them.”
That’s a bit far fetched comparing a secular government that prevents any religion from being afforded special status to a bunch of White Supremacist, anti-semitic psychopaths.
“Any sort of bigotry, religious or secular is to be denounced.”
Did I say that it shouldn’t be the case?
“Come to terms with that and stop throwing red herrings about my unwillingness to call murderous Saud bastards ‘bigots’ and brigands”
And you need to come to terms with the fact that I agree with you in principle. How many times do I have to repeat that before you stop thinking that I am some sort of Bush-esque baboon who enjoys people’s rights being shat upon? I just think you are overreacting about France’s securalism.
“If however I subscribe to your view that societies must value their habits over rights, then there is no room to critique the Sauds.”
My view, as I’ve said several times, is hardly perfect. I am saying that there are practical considerations that need to be taken into account before the perfect balance between free expression of religion and secularism can be found. And that change takes time. And that the French system is a heck of a lot better than Saudi.
“You should listen to yourself. Free expression of ideas need not be in public!!?? WTF? The whole point of free expression that it is a right to express yourself publicly.”
Free expression of RELIGIOUS ideas. There i a difference.
“Beautiful, you’ve just admitted explicitly that secular ideology is inconsistent with the human right of free expression. That’s kind of the whole point.”
And you are continuing to misconstrue my argument. I did no such thing. Again (I am getting tired to repeating myself), I am saying that the expression of religion in public needs to be curtailed so that its influence on government and policy is minimal. It doesn’t mean that you are not allowed to practice your religion; it just means that your religion – or any religion – stays in your homes and places of worship. That’s kinda the whole point behind having a secularist society.
“Is the ‘truth’ that absolute truth is not known fully by any individual also an absolute truth.”
You are delving into semantics again, but to answer your question, no.
Inclusivism states that one religion is uniquely true but salvation is accessible to those outside of that faith. Ergo, Absolute Truth would lie in the teaching of this “one true religion”, not in the various philosophical positions that it adopts in order to understand other religions.
“If it is not possible to know absolute truth, how come you know and assert this ‘truth’?”
You don’t, but an inclusivist (and for that matter, an exclusivist) is too taken up by his religion to see that.
“For starters, read up any of the standard HR Law texts available. Alston and Steiner is fairly good, witha good chapter o cultural relativism. AH Robertson is also worth having a look at.”
Thanks. I’ll look into it. How would you rate Malcolm N Shaw’s book?
“On secular fundamentalism, I believe a good search engine and a few well selected search terms will do the trick. I think there have been a couple of books out recently, but I haven’t really got my hands on any.”
Oh okay. I was under the impression that you already had these links. I’ll look.
June 27, 2007 at 2:54 am
“I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen.”
He apologised for those comments also.
“I am saying that there are practical considerations that need to be taken into account before the perfect balance between free expression of religion and secularism can be found. And that change takes time.”
Ok, let’s give France all the time in the world until they come to terms with the fact that minorities and adherents of Islam and other religions should be provided with the basic dignity of their own choice of clothing. The ICCPR has been around for decades but that’s ok. They need more time. And if they get even more bigoted with time, it doesn’t matter right? Because the secularists are in the majority and minorities better put up or shut up. Or else, tell the Muzzies to get back to where they came from.
“Free expression of RELIGIOUS ideas. There i a difference.”
Exactly, there is a difference if you discriminate against religions. This happens in secular societies. You’re making the right points and are down the right road poet, just missing out on the right conclusions though.
“It doesn’t mean that you are not allowed to practice your religion; it just means that your religion – or any religion – stays in your homes and places of worship.”
So now the innocuous principle behind secularism which was the protection of all religions equally and the denial of a single religion pride of place has become the complete banning of religion in the public sphere. Nice.
” You don’t, but an inclusivist (and for that matter, an exclusivist) is too taken up by his religion to see that.”
For starters, it’s not a semantic issue, it’s philosophy. But, you admit that your position that ‘absolute truth is unknowable’ may also be untrue, since your assumption is that truth is in the first place unknowable. In other words, your very claim is rendered untrue by the very logic inherent within it. This seems to me to logically preclude any claim that denies either the existence or the capacity of humans to know truth. I don’t see how you’re going to get out of this one.
Shaw is ok. A little descriptive at times and short on analysis. Great pre exam book. It’s got two chapters on human rights which aren’t that great. I wouldn’t read Shaw as a human rights text. Alston and Steiner, and Robertson are the widely read HR texts and are have a lot of excerpts from varied sources.
June 27, 2007 at 2:56 am
p.s- there are hundreds of links on the issue of secular fundamentalism and the tyranny of relativism.
June 30, 2007 at 11:16 am
I dont think that practicing ’secularism’ means that you should confine religion to your home and places of worship.
It should mean ideally the separation of religion and the state or the least equal distance of religions. i think its a pretty decent way of to govern and such a government is most likely to be tolerant and fair rather than a theocracy or a pseudo-theocracy.
the french head-scarf ban was only limited to *public schools* public meaning government funded, so while i don’t agree with the policy, its not a society-wide thing and hardly can be compared with the instances of intolerance of theocracies.
July 9, 2007 at 1:29 am
This is an important News Update, please read and pass it along. God has made contact. The message is about Revelation. The message is from God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost respectively. It was sent in the Spring of 2006. It is about the meaning of First is Last and Last is First as written in Revelation. The message is this: In the morning I go to Heaven. In the afternoon I live my life. In the evening I die, death. What does this mean? In other words this means Birth is Last and Last is Birth. To understand this don’t think from point A to point B. Think of this as a continous circle of life. Birth is First, Life, Death, Birth is Last, completing the circle. God also said that Judgment will be before Birth in Heaven. AS birth on Earth is painful so will birth in Heaven. It is possible that this message was delivered by one of God’s Angels in the Spring of 2006. Yes, God has made contact and he sent a messenger. Spread this message along, just like a chain letter. Tell two people. Melanie Stephan
July 20, 2007 at 7:03 am
look im not sayin any thing to offend people, i respect all beliefs of life (whether i think your a fuckin narrow minded fuckass).. But the fact that any one lives there life by worship or the insane idea of the tooth fairy(god), is a weak fuck in my mind. The whole idea of religion in itself is mindboggling. I am entirely comfortable with that when i die, that is it, no more, in the dirt dead, the end. Now i just dont get y the fuck people need to lean on these outrageous idea of (heaven). And its not even that, its when i try to discuss this with ay “religious” person, they wont even talk to u about it and claim to be offended. Now that right there is fuckin insane. Religion is for the weak and scared. Live life in worship hahahaha. All i ask is that anyone living a life a worship is open minded enough and HUMAN enough to realise they could be wrong, and to NOT ask god or this character jesus what they would do. thank u and u can go fuck yourself
August 2, 2007 at 10:10 am
so many people hate chriistianity and christians…
it wouldn’t matter what the situation..christians will always be a major issue to people like u.
i find that pretty funny..seems like there really are some terrible things to complain about in this world..but christianity?? get a life!
August 23, 2008 at 7:16 am
Definitely yes !!
Religion Are Made For Retarded People
Made for almost 2700 years ( main legends in main books ), only retarded people are the followers of crappy handbook, who never list big bang, dinosaurs, evolution and so on ..
I wanna fight against all Fanatism that comes in Europe now, I can’t bear witness people recruting other muslim on the web / propaganda / lots of bad things that we can’t let appen
there’s a big quote > referer to this site http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/abs/long.html
April 11, 2009 at 7:01 pm
yes religion is stupid, but you can’t hope to accomplish anything with that sad post
whining about it will get you nowhere because you can’t “win” when you argue with “sheep”
and to the religious I’m so freakin happy that you picked the one true religion must be so nice that everyone else is wrong…
(sarcasm)
June 30, 2009 at 1:02 pm
lol..secularists are so unhappy….good grief…hehehehehe