"The atheist delusion"
John Gray
Saturday March 15, 2008
GuardianThe atheist delusion

....
"For Dawkins and Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and Martin Amis, Michel Onfray, Philip Pullman and others, religion in general is a poison that has fuelled violence and oppression throughout history, right up to the present day. The urgency with which they produce their anti-religious polemics suggests that a change has occurred as significant as the rise of terrorism: the tide of secularisation has turned. These writers come from a generation schooled to think of religion as a throwback to an earlier stage of human development, which is bound to dwindle away as knowledge continues to increase. In the 19th century, when the scientific and industrial revolutions were changing society very quickly, this may not have been an unreasonable assumption. Dawkins, Hitchens and the rest may still believe that, over the long run, the advance of science will drive religion to the margins of human life, but this is now an article of faith rather than a theory based on evidence."

....

"The influence of secular revolutionary movements on terrorism extends well beyond Islamists. In God Is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens notes that, long before Hizbullah and al-Qaida, the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka pioneered what he rightly calls "the disgusting tactic of suicide murder". He omits to mention that the Tigers are Marxist-Leninists who, while recruiting mainly from the island's Hindu population, reject religion in all its varieties. Tiger suicide bombers do not go to certain death in the belief that they will be rewarded in any postmortem paradise. Nor did the suicide bombers who drove American and French forces out of Lebanon in the 80s, most of whom belonged to organisations of the left such as the Lebanese communist party. These secular terrorists believed they were expediting a historical process from which will come a world better than any that has ever existed. It is a view of things more remote from human realities, and more reliably lethal in its consequences, than most religious myths."
.....
"Writing of the Trotskyite-Luxemburgist sect to which he once belonged, Hitchens confesses sadly: "There are days when I miss my old convictions as if they were an amputated limb." He need not worry. His record on Iraq shows he has not lost the will to believe. The effect of the American-led invasion has been to deliver most of the country outside the Kurdish zone into the hands of an Islamist elective theocracy, in which women, gays and religious minorities are more oppressed than at any time in Iraq's history. The idea that Iraq could become a secular democracy - which Hitchens ardently promoted - was possible only as an act of faith.

quote:

---

The 9/11 hijackers saw themselves as martyrs in a religious tradition, and western opinion has accepted their self-image.

---

quote:

---

The US is no more secular today than it was 150 years ago, when De Tocqueville was amazed and baffled by its all-pervading religiosity. The secular era was in any case partly illusory. The mass political movements of the 20th century were vehicles for myths inherited from religion, and it is no accident that religion is reviving now that these movements have collapsed.

---

quote:

---

The belief that exercising free will is part of being human is a legacy of faith, and like most varieties of atheism today, Pullman's is a derivative of Christianity.

---

Bingo. Pullman's negotiation is grounded in the vacillation between Catholicism and Protestantism, not religion and secularism. And if we believe Max Weber, this philosophical break is indebted as much to the break from Feudalism to Capitalism as it is from the tyranny of religion to the liberalism of individuality.

quote:

---

To be sure, atheism need not be a missionary creed of this kind. It is entirely reasonable to have no religious beliefs, and yet be friendly to religion. It is a funny sort of humanism that condemns an impulse that is peculiarly human. Yet that is what evangelical atheists do when they demonise religion.

---

That's enough for now. I'm sure plenty of babblers will have lots to say about this.

quote:

---

John Gray courted controversy in 2004 following his review of Francis Wheen's book "How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the World." Gray wrote a scathing review of the book, which had otherwise received glowing praise. Gray failed to mention in his review that he was the subject of prolonged criticism in Wheen's book. A substantial part of Chapter 8 of "How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the World" is dedicated to chronicling John Gray’s vastly changing political affiliations.

In a subsequent article for the New Statesman Francis Wheen wrote:

“No such surprises from Professor John Gray, the Screaming Lord Sutch of academe. His review for the Independent complained that the book was a "rambling and bilious tirade" against "ill-assorted hate figures" such as Milton Friedman, Deepak Chopra and Ayatollah Khomeini. It's a treat to be accused of splenetic grumpiness by a man whose own jeremiads make Victor Meldrew sound like Milly-Molly-Mandy. But he omits to mention that another target of Wheen's spleen is, er, Professor John Gray, whose bizarre intellectual odyssey is chronicled in chapter eight. Mightn't a brief declaration of interest have been in order?” - source

---

Talk about a leap of faith.

Moreso, it has been posed that "athieism" is a sure fire way toward a progressive political vision, yet we see, Athiests are devided almost equally politically among all political tendencies, just as all the other faith based (read religious) world views.

[ 26 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Gray's attack on Dawkins is anything but disciplined. He constantly attacks "evangelical" atheism, "zealous" atheism and "fundamentalist" atheism without quite engaging with atheism. Indeed much of Gray's assault is on newly militant atheism's modus operandi, its shrill propagandising, rather than its content. This is Tony Blair's trick (in opposing a "naïve, outdated socialism") of using qualifiers to get inconvenient nouns off the hook.

Dawkins and Co are criticised for believing that "the sort of advance that has been achieved in science can be reproduced in ethics and politics". Gray points out that slavery has not yet been eradicated and that Nazism and communism were very bad, and many atheists "fail to mention" this fact. Even the Taliban are cited to prove that secularism is in retreat. Gray seems to regard human society as in a steady state of original sin, and thus any idea of "the advance of science is itself an article of faith".

Few would agree with Gray that humankind has not evolved - or "progressed" - from primitivism to relative civility over the aeons of life on earth. The fact that much science is bogus and has been abused by politics does not discredit the scientific method any more than it validates religion. All can play the history game.

This is just point scoring. I would leave both religion and atheism out of the evolutionary account, which Darwinism can handle on its own. But this is the essence of Dawkins's case. Gray says that religion is like sex in "the impossibility of its suppression". But I am not interested in suppression. It is perfectly reasonable to forecast that religion might be "evolved out" of human understanding, as science explains each new phenomenon pleaded in aid by religion or, at least, convinces people that such explanation might one day be possible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Moreso, it has been posed that "athieism" is a sure fire way toward a progressive political vision,

---

But what Gray does best here is historicize the conflict between religious fundamentalism and secular liberalism. As leftist atheists, our strategy should be to demystify religion, to historicize it, and to demonstrate that it is complicit and constitutive of a greater oppressive ideology. That is, it is "the sigh of an oppressed people."

That means we interrogate religion as a metaphysical language, as a way we speak about the world. It does not mean that we argue it is based on nothing, that it is all nonsense, that it is worthless. It is emphatically, historically not these things. In fact, to make such an argument is to require a leap of faith that would make a Rapturous Christian shiver. As Gray points out, religion is part and parcel with dominant political ideologies--progressivism, capitalism, etc. As such, it carries the foibles and the advantages of these systems. Why is it so hard for Dawkins et al. to admit as much?

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Really. Has it. No kidding. By whom? When? Prof. Straw Mann?

---

Well you posed the idea that there is no such thing as a "progressive religious discourse". Atheism therefore would seem to be the root of all progressive discourse, therefore, or at the very least essential to it, in as much to say that all Atheist discourse is essentially progressive whereas religious discourse is not.

[ 26 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

As for Jenkin's comments I'll just start with his incomprehensible first paragraph.
In what way is Gray being sly in addressing what he considers the prosyletizing atheists? As an atheist himself (is Jenkins even aware of that fact?) why would Gray be criticizing atheism per se? Surly it is the imputed adjectival component of the "evangelical" that Gray is specifically analysing and rejecting here?

[ 26 March 2008: Message edited by: contrarianna ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
Surely, Gray is deliberately incendiary when he uses evangelical language in his review. It's a fine trick, and one commonly used by Dawkins and the like. Why begrudge it?

But what Gray does best here is historicize the conflict between religious fundamentalism and secular liberalism. As leftist atheists, our strategy should be to demystify religion, to historicize it, and to demonstrate that it is complicit and constitutive of a greater oppressive ideology. That is, it is "the sigh of an oppressed people."

That means we interrogate religion as a metaphysical language, as a way we speak about the world. It does not mean that we argue it is based on nothing, that it is all nonsense, that it is worthless. It is emphatically, historically not these things. In fact, to make such an argument is to require a leap of faith that would make a Rapturous Christian shiver. As Gray points out, religion is part and parcel with dominant political ideologies--progressivism, capitalism, etc. As such, it carries the foibles and the advantages of these systems. Why is it so hard for Dawkins et al. to admit as much?

(And ad hominems on Gray? Surely you can do better--and the one you have is fairly feeble.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Well you posed the idea that there is no such thing as a "progressive religious discourse". Atheism therefore would seem to be the root of all progressive discourse, therefore, or at the very least essential to it, in as much to say that all Atheist discourse is essentially progressive whereas religious discourse is not.

---

What utter nonsense. Go steal a textbook on logic.

Religious people can, and do, contribute daily and indispensably to progressive causes. Many atheists are in love with the status quo and are racists and xenophobes and backward and reactionary and moneygrubbing.

Are you satisfied that I do not advocate that atheism makes people nice?

As for religion, anyone who lets their science or politics or engineering or cooking or childrearing be dictated by their religious beliefs is headed down the quick slope to catastrophe. Of course, the vast majority of humanity are far too intelligent to do that - hence the foolishness or mischief of Gray, who seriously appears to suggest that religion has no less influence in the world than it did in ancient times.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Religious people can, and do, contribute daily and indispensably to progressive causes. Many atheists are in love with the status quo and are racists and xenophobes and backward and reactionary and moneygrubbing.

---

How is that possible when there is no such thing as a "progessive religious discourse". Their contributions are accidental? And then why are so many atheists not progressive?

It would seem to me religion is essentially irrelevant, as Engel's points out.

[ 26 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

How is that possible when there is no such thing as a "progessive religious discourse". Their contributions are accidental?

---

Well, it's like lots of people who eat lettuce manage to tie their shoelaces in the morning quite skillfully.

Of course, no one sits around eating lettuce and expects their shoelaces to get tied spontaneously.

Likewise, lots of religious people become skilled tradespeople.

But woe betide the millwright who prays to "God" that he should get through the day safely without taking some less ethereal measures to protect herself.

Anyone who lets lettuce, or Allah, get in the way of solving life's problems will (or will not) live to regret it. But those who eat, or pray, without attributing all of life's problems and solutions to such a pastime, will do fine.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
When did "religious discourse" get defined as "anything that comes out of the mouth of a religious person"?

---

You are saying that religion is a functional formative ideology that has extreme agency in the discourse, and is a root cause of opression, yet you can not show that religious people do not necessarily support opression, in fact you admit openly that they often oppose it emphatically.

Engel's is right you are wrong, religion is not a formative ideology, except as an occassional aid to the status quo, it is not its driving force by any means.

[ 26 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Well, it's like lots of people who eat lettuce manage to tie their shoelaces in the morning quite skillfully.

Of course, no one sits around eating lettuce and expects their shoelaces to get tied spontaneously.

Likewise, lots of religious people become skilled tradespeople.

But woe betide the millwright who prays to "God" that he should get through the day safely without taking some less ethereal measures to protect herself.

Anyone who lets lettuce, or Allah, get in the way of solving life's problems will (or will not) live to regret it. But those who eat, or pray, without attributing all of life's problems and solutions to such a pastime, will do fine.

---

How does any of this equate with the idea that religion is an essential root cause of negative political ideologies. I agree. It is lettuce. Lettuce is not harmful at all really. I guess it might be if you ate only lettuce, but then this is true of more or less anything.

1. To the individual who believes its "explanations" of the world and stops looking for or actively rejects the real, naturalist, materialist, scientific ones.

2. To the society, when religious differences bolster efforts to divide people on an artificial basis who share the same human interests.

Of course, where people (like the overwhelming majority of humanity most of the time) merely wear religion like a kind of badge - and don't (for example) pray to Baby Jesus instead of taking antibiotics when they contract bacterial pneumonia - then it can be pretty harmless - irrelevant, if you like.

quote:

---

Dawkins, Hitchens and the rest may still believe that, over the long run, the advance of science will drive religion to the margins of human life, but this is now an article of faith rather than a theory based on evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Religion is harmful in two ways:

1. To the individual who believes its "explanations" of the world and stops looking for or actively rejects the real, naturalist, materialist, scientific ones.

2. To the society, when religious differences bolster efforts to divide people on an artificial basis who share the same human interests.

Of course, where people (like the overwhelming majority of humanity most of the time) merely wear religion like a kind of badge - and don't (for example) pray to Baby Jesus instead of taking antibiotics when they contract bacterial pneumonia - then it can be pretty harmless - irrelevant, if you like.

It's when religion is taken seriously that it becomes a menace - see #1 and #2 above.

---

Precisely my point. You are one of the ones who takes religion seriously, and emphasize its importance, rather than shifting the discourse into areas of common ground, and adding yet another point of division, where there need not be one.

These contentious stupid threads are a perfect example of it.

[ 26 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Precisely my point. You are one of the ones who takes religion seriously, and emphasize its importance, rather than shifting the discourse into areas of common ground, and adding yet another point of division, where there need not be one.

---

Well, no. I condemn religion in context:

- when organized religion agitates against women, queers, people of other religion
- when it agitates against medical research
- when attempts are made to divide the progressive movement and progressive organizations on the basis of "faith" (e.g. the NDP commission)
- when attempts are made to secure public money to fund religious education
- when nonsensical claims are made that some monotheistic religions are less warlike or more supportive of scientific discovery than others.

On the other hand, I condemn any talk of religion and the "evils" of religion when:

- Aggressors are using it to justify aggression (e.g. anti-"jihad" propaganda, etc. etc.)
- it is used to suppress civil rights ("reasonable accommodation" hysteria)
- it is used to stir up racism in any form
- it is used to suppress free speech (e.g. the Ul-Haq frenzy, the CHRC complaints)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
You are saying that religion is a functional formative ideology that has extreme agency in the discourse, and is a root cause of opression...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Religion is a "servant" of the ruling class. It serves their interests by becoming a "master" of large numbers of proletarians who slavishly live their lives according to its dictates and never question the authority of the ruling class.

Fortunately, large numbers of proletarians refuse to be mastered by religion. I'd like to increase that number as much as possible.

---

Meh. This is how it works:

quote:

---

All religion, however, is nothing but the fantastic reflection in men's minds of those external forces which control their daily life, a reflection in which the terrestrial forces assume the form of supernatural forces. In the beginnings of history it was the forces of nature which were first so reflected, and which in the course of further evolution underwent the most manifold and varied personifications among the various peoples. This early process has been traced back by comparative mythology, at least in the case of the Indo-European peoples, to its origin in the Indian Vedas, and in its further evolution it has been demonstrated in detail among the Indians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Germans and, so far as material is available, also among the Celts, Lithuanians and Slavs. But it is not long before, side by side with the forces of nature, social forces begin to be active — forces which confront man as equally alien and at first equally inexplicable, dominating him with the same apparent natural necessity as the forces of nature themselves. The fantastic figures, which at first only reflected the mysterious forces of nature, at this point acquire social attributes, become representatives of the forces of history. *16 At a still further stage of evolution, all the natural and social attributes of the numerous gods are transferred to one almighty god, who is but a reflection of the abstract man. Such was the origin of monotheism, which was historically the last product of the vulgarised philosophy of the later Greeks and found its incarnation in the exclusively national god of the Jews, Jehovah. In this convenient, handy and universally adaptable form, religion can continue to exist as the immediate, that is, the sentimental form of men's relation to the alien, natural and social, forces which dominate them, so long as men remain under the control of these forces. However, we have seen repeatedly that in existing bourgeois society men are dominated by the economic conditions created by themselves, by the means of production which they themselves have produced, as if by an alien force. The actual basis of the religious reflective activity therefore continues to exist, and with it the religious reflection itself. And although bourgeois political economy has given a certain insight into the causal connection of this alien domination, this makes no essential difference. Bourgeois economics can neither prevent crises in general, nor protect the individual capitalists from losses, bad debts and bankruptcy, nor secure the individual workers against unemployment and destitution. It is still true that man proposes and God (that is, the alien domination of the capitalist mode of production) disposes. Mere knowledge, even if it went much further and deeper than that of bourgeois economic science, is not enough to bring social forces under the domination of society. What is above all necessary for this, is a social act. And when this act has been accomplished, when society, by taking possession of all means of production and using them on a planned basis, has freed itself and all its members from the bondage in which they are now held by these means of production which they themselves have produced but which confront them as an irresistible alien force, when therefore man no longer merely proposes, but also disposes — only then will the last alien force which is still reflected in religion vanish; and with it will also vanish the religious reflection itself, for the simple reason that then there will be nothing left to reflect.

Herr Dühring, however, cannot wait until religion dies this, its natural, death. He proceeds in more deep-rooted fashion. He out-Bismarcks Bismarck; he decrees sharper May laws [127] not merely against Catholicism, but against all religion whatsoever; he incites his gendarmes of the future against religion, and thereby helps it to martyrdom and a prolonged lease of life. Wherever we turn, we find specifically Prussian socialism.

---

Anti-Dühring by Frederick Engels 1877

It's easy to see why radical atheism is the home of so many anti-progressive persons, after all even the Marxist variety can't seem to dislodge themselves from hindbound 19th Century radical rationalism, that was so nicely disposed of in 1877.

Ghosts are ghosts Spector, they can not harm you, nor can you harm them... so why bother trying?

[ 26 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

You talk as if religion is nothing, whereas everybody else acknowledges that it is, and has been, used by ruling classes as a powerful tool of social hegemony. Engels struggled all his life against idealism and for materialism. That struggle today necessarily involves a struggle against religious ideas, myths, and dogmas.

There is no sense at all that it the kind of agressive agent, as you describe it "becoming a "master" of large numbers of proletarians who slavishly live their lives according to its dictates and never question the authority of the ruling class."

That is simply not there. Rather, Engels asserts:

quote:

---

In this convenient, handy and universally adaptable form, religion can continue to exist as the immediate, that is, the sentimental form of men's relation to the alien, natural and social, forces which dominate them, so long as men remain under the control of these forces. However, we have seen repeatedly that in existing bourgeois society men are dominated by the economic conditions created by themselves, by the means of production which they themselves have produced, as if by an alien force.

---

No where does he suggest that "a struggle against religious ideas, myths, and dogmas," is essential, in fact he argues "What is above all necessary for this, is a social act. And when this act has been accomplished... ...only then will the last alien force which is still reflected in religion vanish; and with it will also vanish the religious reflection itself, for the simple reason that then there will be nothing left to reflect."

Religion vanishes through a natural process resulting from people taking control of their lives in a material sense, it is not struggled against, specifically. In essence, Engels argues that religion should be ignored.

I agree.

[ 26 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

You may have over looked this part of your quote:

quote:

---

so long as men remain under the control of these forces.

---

Perhaps "natural process" was not excatly the right phrase, but the process of de-mytholgizing, is one that comes from materializing, in the social act, not one of focussed ideogical struggle against the mythology, which Marx asserted was "the collective sigh of the oppressed". Hence it "vanishes," because it is no longer necessary for the mythology to persist. It is not in any way erradicated.

And yes, I see he says "men" but I am not in the habit of correcting the historical record, and you will see that I used "people", and not men.

quote:

---

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

---

Marx.

Clearly Marx also dismisses direct criticism of religion, as off point, merely to attack the halo, not the problem itself: "To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions."

Again, the social act is primary.

[ 26 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Really. Has it. No kidding. By whom? When? Prof. Straw Mann?

---

The result, I think, is that humans hand off responsibility (it is the will of God) to some unseen, and unknown being (the Lord works in mysterious ways).

As well, when the name of God is invoked, even the most unconscionable actions can be justified. For example, God telling George W. Bush to invade Iraq. Or the inquisition ...

I think humans need to evolve beyond religion and blind faith before we can have any really hope for the future and the species.

He speaks of a "social act" that will get rid of religion, or rather the mythology of "alien forces", meaning it just does not mysteriously vanish, nor is it a natural process. He does not in the snippet you gave, actually give the social acts required. You speak of some mysteriious materializing, and not social struggle against, which I do not believe he implies either.

The social act is premised on "taking possession of all means of production and using them on a planned basis, has freed itself and all its members from the bondage in which they are now held by these means of production which they themselves have produced but which confront them as an irresistible alien force, when therefore man no longer merely proposes, but also disposes"

He does not say by what means this social act is to be performed here, precisely, but the object is clear. The illusions will be dispensed with as people take control of their lives in a material sense. The illusions themselves are really ancillary in the process of demystificationm, which is a material one actually.

And what more would you expect from a dyed in the wool materialist like Engles, anyway? Of course religious mythology is the expression of material circumstances, and of course it is a change in the material circumstance, and not "mere knowledge" (sic) that will transform peoples world view.

quote:

---

Mere knowledge, even if it went much further and deeper than that of bourgeois economic science, is not enough to bring social forces under the domination of society.

---

[ 26 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Meh. Forget it. Attack the political processess not their manifestation. The fact that religion finds service in the cause of opression, does not change the fact that religion is the servant, not the master.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Why bother, since religion is, as Unionist pointed out, so much lettuce? Racism is an opression on another order whatsoever, as it is tangibly a formative ideological construct with extreme agency in the discourse.

---

Racism is evil because it creates divisions among people of common interest.

Religion does exactly the same.

Racism rejects science in favour of the superiority of some over others.

Religion does exactly the same.

Racism and religion both played roles long ago in the development of humanity. Everyone agrees that any such role racism may have played ended thousands of years ago. Many have realized that religion has suffered the same fate. One day soon, it too will become common knowledge - notwithstanding the ahistorical tendentious views the John Grays who say religion will be here forever (like the Roman and British Empires and phlogiston).

[ 26 March 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I never said nor believed otherwise. Religion is the servant. Like nuclear weapons.

---

But nuclear weapons are only one manifestation of nuclear science, in total. Arguing fundamentally against religion in total, is tantmount to saying that Nuclear Weapons are the only possible result of nuclear science, and therefore we should oppose nuclear science in total.

[ 26 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Is there anything intrinsicly homophobic about the idea that there is a "concious creator"?

[ 26 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Like all human institutions - the state, the family, etc. - religion will always be contested space, where the dominant strata will seek to impose their will; but as in all other human institutions there will be challenges to that dominant strata. In some locales those who resist the dominant ideology will be succesful; in others, they will fail; in others, there will be small gains and small losses.

I am a believer, unionist. I believe that God is with us and wants us to be whole people - to seek for truth, and justice, and overall for compassion. It is central to who I am.

You have praised me in the past for not waving my religion around like a red cape, not flaunting it. I thank you for that. I do try not to impose my faith - mainly because I don't think that's the point of faith or belief in God.

But I must say, if there is a red cape being waved, it is taglines like "proud to be a secular fundamentalist". Can you see that this is a repetition, each and every time we converse on this board, that there is something about me that you find gross and abhorrent; something that has nothing to do, in and of itself, with the issues we discuss on a daily basis?

I ask you this as a friend, I think. As someone who respects you, and the contribution you make on many areas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdl_xNMTYvs

quote:

---

Can you show me any examples of progressive discourse among racists?

---

quote:

---

Yes, religion is the servant. It is the servant of power, but also of the powerless; it is the servant of violence, but also peace; it is the servant of ignorance, but also of the search for truth; it is, in sum, a human institution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
The American Constitution is one example of such. Many of its authors were slave owners.

---

Good point. Got any present day examples you would like to put forward? Any that come directly from the doctrine? It seems the example of the authors of the constitution were making their propositions, outside of their underlying assumptions of the era in which they exsited.

In fact, I would say the US constitution, was a very able tool in undermining racism in the US, once its was taken out of the frame of the racist discourse which surrounded it. It is not, per se, a racist document.

[ 26 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
It's a terrible point. The value of the American constitution is not related to racism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Here we go. More Angels dancing on the head of a pin arguements, using as evidence, antiquated texts that all agree are fundamentally flawed.

---

Actually, I was thinking of priests, imams and rabbis today who are homophobic - some sects far more than others, while some few have reluctantly accommodated themselves to where society has already progressed.

Ask yourself why, when it comes to the rights of women, of queers, the equality of peoples (preaching hatred against non-believers), birth control, divorce, choice, scientific education, sex education, that organized religion has to be dragged kicking and screaming where society has already gone - and so it has been for hundreds of years.

I'm not talking about ancient texts - never was. It is ridiculous to see, on this very board, some posters hauling out some old book to show that it's "not as backward" as some other old books - demonstrating by their very behaviour the division that religion inherently fosters.

No, I'm talking about words and deeds today. The Catholic Church. The Anglican Church. Orthodox Judaism (and some other wings). Evangelical Christiantiy. Muslim theocracies. I'm talking about the real world, here and now, and how these "cultures" handed down from parent to child serve to divide people and perpetuate oppression and exploitation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Well, the point was that nothing good has come from with the racist discourse, not from racists themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Ask yourself why, when it comes to the rights of women, of queers, the equality of peoples (preaching hatred against non-believers), birth control, divorce, choice, scientific education, sex education, that organized religion has to be dragged kicking and screaming where society has already gone - and so it has been for hundreds of years.

---

Because religion, in its institutional form reflects the morality of the age and people who are contained within the institution. It reinforces status quo biases and prejudices, and uses a liturgical basis to support those biases. It does not drive these biases or prejudices; those are aspects of the reigning cultural mores.

Hence, only now, when the general cultural ethos has changed does the religious discourse change to fit the reigning cultural norms. The Greeks were very religious, and not particularly homophobic. Again, what is particularly homophobic about the belief in a divine being?

Ask yourself why Fidel Castro was calling Homosexuality a “bourgeois affliction”, not so very long ago? It was "scientific socialism" at its best. Atheist's are also very often homophobic, and have been, including secular democrats and socialists. Who was kept in the prison after everyone else had been liberated from the concentration camps? Gay men of course. Who else? Atheism and secularity in no way can be shown to be immune from bigotry, prima facie, in fact, intolerance simply finds justification in pseudo science.

These are very silly rhetorical games you are playing and they are not at all scientific. What a ridiculous question, the United Church was doing gay marriage before it was recognized legally as allowable in law, and was ordaining Gay minsters as early as 1988.

Rather it was the Church that forced the issue on secular society.

[ 26 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Rather it was the Church that forced the issue on secular society.

---

quote:

---

In 1984 The United Church of Canada affirmed our acceptance of all human beings as persons made in the image of God, regardless of their sexual orientation. In 1988 the church affirmed that all persons who profess faith in Jesus Christ, regardless of their sexual orientation, are eligible to be considered for ordered ministry. In 1992 the General Council directed that liturgical and pastoral resources for same-sex covenants be made available to congregations wishing to bless such unions. In 2000 the United Church affirmed that human sexual orientations, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are a gift from God and part of the marvellous diversity of creation. It further resolved to advocate for the civil recognition of same-sex partnerships. Currently the church is initiating a study to determine whether the civil recognition of same-sex partnerships would include marriage. Concurrently the government is holding hearings to discern the will of the Canadian people in regard to the civil recognition of same-sex partnerships.

---

quote:

---

In 1988 the General Council affirmed that all "life-long relationships" (note the omission of the term "marriage") need to be faithful, responsible, just, loving, health-giving, healing, and sustaining of community and self. The implication is that these standards apply to both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

General Council pastoral care resources for marriage preparation and covenanting services make no distinction between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

---

Civil Recognition of Same-Sex Partnerships

Same sex marriage was only recognized by the secular state in 2005, and to a large extent opening up of this debate came about through the debate opening up within the United Church and its religious community.

[ 26 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:
But I must say, if there is a red cape being waved, it is taglines like "proud to be a secular fundamentalist". Can you see that this is a repetition, each and every time we converse on this board, that there is something about me that you find gross and abhorrent; something that has nothing to do, in and of itself, with the issues we discuss on a daily basis?

---

Certainly not. I put that tagline there because Bill Blaikie made a speech in which he reviled "secular fundamentalists".

I thought: "No one calls themselves that; whom can he mean? People who want civil society to be consistently and thoroughly secular, with total separation of church and state? People who cherish freedom of conscience, but who reject all influence of organized religion on public institutions? People who want no divisions in political parties or progressive movements on the basis of who is religious and who is not? That's me he's talking about."

So those are my beliefs and my stands. You complain that my proclamation of my beliefs is a proclamation that I find something about you to be gross and abhorrent? Isn't that just a touch of emotional blackmail? I should abandon my beliefs... why exactly?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Well the recongized same sex union in the 80's.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Same sex marriage was only recognized by the secular state in 2005, and to a large extent opening up of this debate came about through the debate opening up within the United Church and its religious community.

---

Well, 2005 was the very last act of a long movement by activists and the courts. And yes, the United Church did not take homophobia as its starting and ending point.

But even in legalizing equal marriage in 2005, the very enabling statute clearly provided that religious practitioners could refuse to conduct same-sex marriages without losing their right to marry couples.

Get it? Society officially recognized marriage to be marriage, irrespective of the sex or gender of the participants - yet had to make an exception for the religious zealots who still have their heads firmly stuck in the anus of history.

NO OTHER EXCEPTIONS WERE MADE. Only for the people of God.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:

[LIST]...21 years after homosexuality was decriminalized by secular forces.

---

[ 26 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Trudeau was a Catholic.

---

Again - can't tell the difference between a Catholic person and the damned Catholic Church.

Do you recall the Pope saying the Church had no place in the bedrooms and kitches and living rooms of the nation? That God loves women priests and queer Cardinals and divorce and birth control and freedom of choice?

I heard him "apologize" to the Jews: "I didn't mean they killed Christ, sorry it took me a few decades after the Nazi genocide to work that out..."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
And that's how you explain the decriminalization of abortion, too, no doubt.

---

No actually, I am just reasserting once again that religion is generally a non-factor in these issues, not the driving force behind ignorance, repression, which is being asserted hereabout. It is variously sometimes a tool for the right, and also sometimes a tool for progressive ideas.

[ 26 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
No actually, I am just reasserting once again that religion is generally a non-factor in these issues, not the driving force behind ignorance, repression, which is being asserted hereabout.

---

"Religion is generally a non-factor" in the struggle of women for equality, for choice, for liberation from oppressive marriages, for control over their bodies, of queers for the right to be treated like human beings equal to all others, for the struggle of the Aboriginal people to preserve their families and culture and convey it to their children?

Religion is a "non-factor" in those matters?

Religion stands as one of the most destructive and devastating forces blocking progressive change on all those fronts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Either of you want to take on explaining how the belief in a "concious creator" is essentially homophobic and anti-choice?

---

Individual belief in a "conscious creator" is harmful only to the individual's attempts to solve problems in life and understand the world.

Religion, as a mass phenomenon and organized institution(s), is a mechanism for social control, backwardness, and perpetuation of the status quo.

Imam Daayiee Abdullah offers a gay Muslim's insights for the holidays

Perhaps you could start by combing the web page I linked to from the United Church for latent homophobia.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Thanks for helping turn this board into a place where socialist discourse most certainly does not find common ground with progressive people regardless of their relgious beliefs. Intollerance is never pretty, nor is it the slightest bit progressive.

---

I have no difficulty with any individual's religious beliefs. Some people - most notably you - have great difficulty with my militant atheism.

That shows only the weakness of your own faith and the intolerance of which you are the victim.

You are the one who avoids - like the plague - finding any common ground with me on socialist, anti-imperialist, anti-racist, and other issues, because my hatred and contempt for religious superstition repels you so viscerally.

Fanatics bug me. The Jehovah's Witness bug me when they are at my door step, and the Mormons too, as to the Muslim preechers, and all the others, and you too. You are in with that lot.

And moreso, your intollerance indicates a deep anti-progressive streak that is not only divisive, but also expressive of a strong authoritarian view that is repugnant.

[ 26 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Fanatics bug me. The Jehovah's Witness bug me when they are at my door step, and the Mormons too, as to the Muslim preechers, and all the others, and you too. You are in with that lot.

---

I abhor religion as ideology, and I despise the organized institutions that peddle it and thrive off people's ignorance and misery.

You, on the other hand, are "bugged" by individuals.

You should give some thought to what you say.

By the way, the word "fanatic", like the words "fundamentalist" and "bastard" and "terrorist", are merely words of hate. They don't really mean anything concrete, except: "I hate him, I'd like to see him locked up or dead or disappear."

I found your response to Coyote to be a bunch weaseling around, frankly. A bunch of self justifying words in the face of a direct call for respect, in the name of solidarity. I see you used that word, but I hardly think you know what that means, respect that is.

Fundamentally you are constantly trolling this issue.

Your testimony here amounts to a demand to fly your shitty underwear as your standard, in the name of freedom of speech, even though it offends those who would be your strongest allies.

Bye bye dude. You can keep your friends Hitches, Dawkins and Harris.

[ 26 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

It's nice to see that you've declared me an enemy - irrevocably. I will never do that to you. No matter how much it would validate your emotions on this issue.

quote:

---

February 11th was the 30th anniversary (this was written in 2004) of Winnipeg Unitarian minister Rev. Norm Naylor's reading of banns and attempt to register the marriage of Richard North and Chris Vogel, who were (later on) the first gay couple to be legally wed in Manitoba following the recent court decision there.

---

UU Church is rightly proud of its role, etc.

Mind you, this actually supports Cueball's claims in general, by showing that a religious institution, and some creativity by a church Minister, led to the first attempt in Canadian history to register the marriage of a same-sex couple. Minister Naylor managed to use the ability to "read the banns" in a church as a way to register a marriage as a creative way to challenge the homophobic laws then in existence. Religion was used to challenge religion.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

If a church figure, even in a very reactionary church, took steps to openly side with the poor and the downtrodden, and was murdered in his own church while saying Mass, wouldn't we on the left side with him?

You're Damn Right We Would Support Him!

quote:

---

Latin America has already laid you in its glory of Bernini
in the foamy halo of its seas,
in the angry canopy of the alert Andes,
in the song of all its streets,
in the new calvary of all its prisons,
of all its trenches,
of all its altars. . . .
In the secure altar of the sleepless heart of its children!

San Romero of America, our shepherd and martyr:
nobody will silence your last homily!

---

Oscar Romero: Bishop of the poor

[ 26 March 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I have rarely seen someone so full of hate for those who share the same political aims. I am absolutely sure that it is the venom of religion which is at the bottom of it. It is another example of how religion poisons any healthy situation.

---

We do not share the same political aims. I support an environment of respect and tollerance, among allies you want to be objectively superior, and to assert your claims to such, and the right to openly deride and ridicule people who you feel superior too.

[ 26 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Mind you, this actually supports Cueball's claims in general, by showing that a religious institution, and some creativity by a church Minister, led to the first attempt in Canadian history to register the marriage of a same-sex couple.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
I've got a small quibble with Cueball's claims regarding the precedent of the United Church. Sure, it's special pleading (on behalf of my own church), but it should be pointed out that the Unitarian Universalist Church of Winnipeg as early as 1974 took steps to establish legal same sex marriages.

Oscar Romero: Bishop of the poor

[ 26 March 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

---

http://www.republic-news.org/archive/183-repub/183_nenonen.html

Gray and Chris Hedges are in agreement that the political ideologies that have descended from the Enlightenment are, in many important ways, religious movements whose roots can be found in Christian Millennialism. Certainly the idea, so often espoused by people like unionist, that scientific, social, and moral progress are somehow linked, and that Reason can somehow liberate humanity from the miseries of irrationality is itself nothing more than an expression of a rationalist utopian faith, one whose history is every bit as sordid as any other religion’s.

Take rational utopianism’s relationship to racism, for example. Gray writes that,

“A number of Enlightenment luminaries were explicit in expressing their belief in natural inequality, with some claiming that humanity actually comprised several different species. Voltaire subscribed to a secular version of the pre-Adamite theory advanced by some Christian theologians that suggested that Jews were pre-Adamites, remnants of an older species that existed before Adam was created. It was Immanuel Kant—after Voltaire the supreme Enlightenment figure and, unlike Voltaire, a great philosopher—who more than any other thinker gave intellectual legitimacy to the concept of race. Kant was in the forefront of the science of anthropology that was emerging in Europe and maintained that there are innate differences between the races. While he judged whites to have all the attributes required for progress towards perfection, he represents Africans as being predisposed towards slavery…Asians, on the other hand, he viewed as civilized but static—a view that John Stuart Mill endorsed when in On Liberty (1859) he referred to China as a stagnant civilization, declaring ‘…they have become stationary—have remained so for thousands of years; and if they are ever to be improved it must be by foreigners.’…A similar picture of India was presented by Marx, who defended colonial rule as a means of overcoming the torpor of village life. Whether the disabilities of other people were innate (as was believed in the case of Africans) or due to cultural backwardness (as was supposed to be true of Asians), the remedy was the same. All had to be turned into Europeans, if necessary by force.

“Beliefs of this kind are found in many Enlightenment thinkers. It is frequently argued on their behalf that they were creatures of their time, but it is hardly a compelling defence. These Enlightenment thinkers not only voiced the prejudices of their age—a failing for which they might be forgiven were it not for the fact that they so often claimed to be much wiser than their contemporaries—they also claimed the authority of reason for them. Before the Enlightenment, racist attitudes rarely aspired to the dignity of theory. Even Aristotle, who defended slavery and the subordination of women as part of the natural order, did not develop a theory that maintained that humanity was composed of distinct and unequal racial groups. Racial prejudice may be immemorial, but racism is a product of the Enlightenment.”

The history of rationalist savagery—the racist theories that helped legitimize European colonialism, the Terror in France, and Stalinism all come to mind—is every bit as deplorable as anything in what is traditionally thought of as the history of religion. This is something that rationalist utopians tend to avoid thinking about; when they discuss it at all, they make use of the same kinds of rationalizations that they decry as evidence of irrationality when used by their religious counterparts.

If rationalist utopianism is essentially religious, then its central ritual seems to be the ridicule of the religious “other”. I suspect that through this ritual, rationalist utopians identify themselves as a rational (read virtuous and holy) in-group in contrast to an irrational (read vicious and demonic) out-group. This gives them a sense of heroism that serves to bolster their self-esteem and which facilitates the projection all of their own psychological ugliness (their self-doubt, irrationality, vulnerability, etc) onto their religious scapegoats.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:
But you are declaring yourself the enemy of thousands, millions, who work day after day for the betterment of others at least in part because of the belief that there is a God

---

Stop it. I am not doing that. I have never done that. I have said so many times that I work with believers in various religions every day of my life, with no conflict or contradiction at all - because they and I see clearly that on the overwhelming majority of issues facing us, religion is indeed irrelevant (as Cueball pretends to believe) - and that raising issues of religion will divide, not unite.

So religion is fine, as long as it stays in people's hearts and as long as they don't use it to try to understand reality or lord it over others.

But I'll tell you also - if you can't stand to hear me say that "God" is an outmoded invention of humans that does more harm than good today, then you should really question why your faith is so fragile. I will never attack you, nor the "millions" of others. Why? Because I will never descend to the abyss where Cueball just landed in his last post - that because I consider Allah to be a joke, Cueball no longer shares any political aims with me!

quote:

---

“Beliefs of this kind are found in many Enlightenment thinkers. It is frequently argued on their behalf that they were creatures of their time, but it is hardly a compelling defence. These Enlightenment thinkers not only voiced the prejudices of their age—a failing for which they might be forgiven were it not for the fact that they so often claimed to be much wiser than their contemporaries—they also claimed the authority of reason for them. Before the Enlightenment, racist attitudes rarely aspired to the dignity of theory. Even Aristotle, who defended slavery and the subordination of women as part of the natural order, did not develop a theory that maintained that humanity was composed of distinct and unequal racial groups. Racial prejudice may be immemorial, but racism is a product of the Enlightenment.”

---

Yes, its very difficult to pinpoint hysterical racism of the kind we know today prior to the enlightement.

[ 26 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Nenonen:
Certainly the idea, so often espoused by people like unionist, that scientific, social, and moral progress are somehow linked, and that Reason can somehow liberate humanity from the miseries of irrationality is itself nothing more than an expression of a rationalist utopian faith, one whose history is every bit as sordid as any other religion’s.

---

quote:

---

unionist: Did you have any comment on the role of the churches and organized religion in general on the issues I raised? I suggested that, as a whole, they are in the rearguard of civil society - and I wonder aloud why ideologies supposedly based on love would treat human beings (women etc.) as they do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Oh God, he's back. Get Galileo and Giordano Bruno out of here, fast.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

If you're backing off a little from your rejection of the[ baby and the bathwater, then I say good on you.

---

Have you missed my championing of Rev. Jeremiah Wright against the cowardice and pandering of Barack Obama?

Have you missed my frequent comments on the Unitarian Universalists, among whom I count several friends and comrades, as to how my condemnation of religion does not apply to them?

Have you missed my comparisons of the stand of the United Church on equal marriage to the feeble meanderings and cowardice of the Anglican Church?

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
My (small) church isn't like that, unionist. (Unitarian Universalists) And I doubt it's the only one like that.

Unionist: I have Unitarian friends in Montréal. They are humanists and (in my humble opinion) atheists, though they might not call themselves that. They actually run some wonderful and progressive activities out of the Unitarian church on de Maisonneuve. I don't consider it a religion. See how I define my way out of extreme positions?

N.Beltov: Just some friendly advice that you can ignore: I think you need a more precise weapon than the sledgehammer you're using. Use the right tool for the job.

Unionist: What's the right tool for the Catholic Church? Name it and I'll try it out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
You know, I'd like to add that unionist is one of the few babblers that actually has made note of the usefulness of dialectics when I've mentioned it. It seems odd, therefore, that he would misunderstand the contradictory role that particular institutions (like churches) or ideologies (like religion) play in social life.

---

I rather thought this point summed that up nicely

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:
Like all human institutions - the state, the family, etc. - religion will always be contested space, where the dominant strata will seek to impose their will; but as in all other human institutions there will be challenges to that dominant strata. In some locales those who resist the dominant ideology will be succesful; in others, they will fail; in others, there will be small gains and small losses.

---

[ 26 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

The United Church has played an admirable leading role, in the midst of the great darkness that is organized religion, in pushing the progressive envelope on social justice issues - as have Unitarians and some others. Just as the Catholic Church has played its usual destructive role, as have various Muslim and Jewish organizations. Then there are those like the Anglicans who are always a step behind the rest of society but just can't get over how progressive they think they are! I'm not talking at all about individuals here, but rather the official church bodies.

Religious organizations must be encouraged, both from outside and especially from the inside, to overcome their traditional role as brakes upon progressive social change. We need more success stories like United Church.

---

I understand Cueball forgetting all such quotes, because it doesn't fit with his theory that I am an evil troll and the other words he used about me in various threads. He probably also has a huge problem with me praising the Unitarian Universalists and the United Church, and not his beloved Islam (or my beloved Judaism or the damned Catholic Church).

Nor is Beltov.

[ 26 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Michelle, have you run across a church which does not promote bigotry in one form or another? I exclude non-theistic varieties such as the Unitarians.

---

N.Beltov, why do you make presumptions about people? Is it just Cueball repeating his abuse over and over and over and over and over again, until some of it sticks?

quote:

---

unionist: You never did answer my question, N.Beltov. What's the right tool for the Catholic Church?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
I am not even on that thread. Nor did I ever read that post, let alone forget it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Yet, hardly a week goes by without some snarling diatribe about the idiocy of the Qu'ran, or some such.

---

quote:

---

The United Church has played an admirable leading role, in the midst of the great darkness that is organized religion, in pushing the progressive envelope on social justice issues - as have Unitarians and some others. Just as the Catholic Church has played its usual destructive role, as have various Muslim and Jewish organizations. Then there are those like the Anglicans who are always a step behind the rest of society but just can't get over how progressive they think they are! I'm not talking at all about individuals here, but rather the official church bodies.

Religious organizations must be encouraged, both from outside and especially from the inside, to overcome their traditional role as brakes upon progressive social change. We need more success stories like United Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

If you expect me to bow and scrape before your precious Muhammad and Allah in order to show some respectful dialogue, you must have fallen from a higher storey than I ever imagined.

---

I find your repeated imputation that I am Muslim to be exceedingly distatsful, and also, I am not entirely sure that you are not manipulating the present hysteria about Muslim people as a tool for smearing me. I am religiously agnostic, and have stated this repeatedly. Moreso, my religious views are irrelevant.

I guess I should never have mentioned that I have people in my family who are relgious Muslims, and Arabs.

[ 26 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

I find your repeated imputation that I am Muslim to be exceedingly distatsful, and also, I am not entirely sure that you are not manipulating the present hysteria about Muslim people as a tool of smearing me.

---

You have described yourself as an agnostic, and I accept that. I have never once, not once, said or implied that you are a Muslim - primarily because I could not possibly care less about any individual's private personal beliefs. I do note, however, that you spend an inordinate amount of time saying positive things about Islam, and freaking right out when anyone points out the embarrassingly obvious things about that creed. So if the shoe fits, wear it - but I never said or implied you're Muslim, because frankly I don't give a shit.

As for your accusation of Islamophobia, that is so base and ugly that you can just take it to sleep with you and play with it in your nightmares. What a disgusting and filthy allegation.

ETA: I didn't respond to this vile filth because you only added it as an afterthought - proving that sober second thought isn't always a good idea:

quote:

---

I guess I should never have mentioned that I have people in my family who are relgious Muslims, and Arabs.

---

What a provocateur statement, unworthy of any response. Shameless.

[ 26 March 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

"If you expect me to bow and scrape before your precious Muhammad and Allah..."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
You just said:

"If you expect me to bow and scrape before your precious Muhammad and Allah..."

And this is not the first time you have done it either. The first time I thought it was a mistake. Now I am not so sure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

It's not a mistake. You and one or two others on this board "defend" these entities every chance you get and pounce on anyway who doesn't agree.

---

That in no way justifies you imputing that "Allah" has anything to do with me.

I tend to defend Muslim people here, because they are not very well represented here, and can not defend themselves. No Muslims people post here anymore. Is babble a safe place for linked activist discourse with progressive Muslim people? Not at all. And yes, I am putting direct responsibility onto you for helping make the environment here poisonous to anyone of religious faith, regardless of their political stand. Safety is a particularly crucial issue when a community is under stress and Muslims in Canada are the most marginalized community of the three you usually smear. If not here, where? Where are progressive Muslim people supposed to find an internet community that accepts them and welcomes them into the established progressive left?

Starting off with "Welcome to the secular western left you ignorant hindbound bumpkin, by the way, in case you were wondering about my take on the Dutch cartoons, I say Islam is shit -- sue me... did you see the sign that said 'leave your shakers, face paint, talismans and your lucky rabbits foot at the door?" is hardly the best stance for someone seriously interested in community outreach to marginalized people. It is combative and demeaning, even if couched in a general anti-religious world view, which makes it seem fair, even though the objective social condition indicate otherwise. It is not fair because the objective social conditions mean that the general smearing is most effectively felt by the most marginalized, note: Dawkins and Hitchens get all the press.

Muslims are directly under attack in the media, and by state institution explicitly as an ethnic group, a reality that your constant sermonizing does not seem to take into account. And it is particularly not fair, when the so called "rationalist" discourse is also rife with many of the same common-knowledge falsehoods that pervade anti-muslim Christian ideology -- Muslims are alien generally to western discourse and I find myself needing to fill in, given many of the gross, and quasi-racist ignorances that are commonly uttered. Things such as the Armenian genocide was an religious act carried out in the name of Islam, and seriously suggesting that western men "love their women more" than middle eastern men, and other bullshit of the kind.

I have explained this all before. And there is no way whatsoever that you should be imputing that I am a religious Muslim, and that I should be required to explain why I post the way I do, even if I were.

It is all very distasteful, and really just more of your bullying tactics. Again this is another case of active and belligerent trolling for effect, and you clearly admit it.

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Orneryboy.com

---

Not this?

I think the Pope is evil, and I don't even believe in evil. I think the Dalai Lama when he speaks of politics is highly suspect. When people in power abuse the name of God for untoward political ends, I am disgusted--exactly as I am disgusted when people in power abuse concepts of nationhood, solidarity, family, free speech, multiculturalism, and any number of tenets of Western liberal democracy. If Dawkins, and you, unionist, could join me in my disgust, then we could be allies. We are, aren't we?

But Dawkins does not stop here, and often, many babblers do not either. Not content to rebuke the criminals, you rebuke any who break bread with them. Oh yes, you reserve some approval for those religious folk who demonstrate high moral courage and fight injustice in the name of religion--but it is difficult not to equally sense disdain when such faint praise is handed out. Gratuitous phrases like 'religion is a joke' and 'Islam is shit' too often hang between such compliments.

Religion is not a joke. To say it is is fundamentally unscientific. Religion is historically based, and has been for millennia, across the globe, in every single civilization. Again, to say that it is nonsense, that it is based on nothing, is a tremendous leap of faith--not even the grossest fanatic could make such a move. So not only do Dawkins' theories that ridicule and caricature religion unnecessarily divide allies, they are simply groundless.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
Dawkins et al. do not argue for the end of institutionalized religion. They argue explicitly for an eradication of all religion, of faith in God, of beliefs precipitated by religion, full stop.

---