Atheists & Agnostics
Related: About this forumWe must offend religion more: Islam, Christianity and our tolerance for ancient myths, harmful ideas
Our enduring deference to religion, despite its toxicity and phony explanations for the cosmos, lets it surviveJEFFREY TAYLER
...
Concepts of freedom of expression and the laws designed to protect it were born in Europes blood-soaked history of interfaith warfare, mostly between Catholics and Protestants. The (atheistic) French Revolution aimed to de-Christianize France in order to smash the (temporal, wealth-based) stranglehold the Catholic Church had on the country. The Founding Fathers well knew how the state could use religion against the people; hence, the First Amendment safeguards both freedom of speech and freedom of religion by forbidding Congress to enact laws abridging the exercise of either. The Abrahamic faiths have never been simply matters of conscience; they have always served as weapons to impose control, especially over women and their bodies, sexual minorities and education. Weapons need to be kept under lock and key, or better yet, eliminated.
A surfeit of slipshod thinking and befuddled verbiage has complicated our discourse about both the Charlie Hebdo and Lars Vilks affairs. Notwithstanding logic and the damage done to our prospects for self-preservation, we avoid frank talk about Islam the main faith today inspiring terrorism. It helps no one to hurl poppycock slurs such as Islamophobe or Islamophobic at those who talk forthrightly about this. And remember, unless you solemnly believe in the Quran, there is nothing absolutely nothing in it to respect. (The same goes for the Bible and the Torah, of course.) Attempts to shield religions from censure in the face of overwhelming evidence President Obama leads the pack of invertebrate Western politicians doing this amount to nothing more than pandering acceptance of ancient myths, harmful ideas and the increasingly gruesome violence to which they often lead. Ideologies merit no a priori respect; people do.
Or, as Shevchenko put it succinctly to me later in our talk, We [progressives] surrendered when we accepted the word Islamophobia. She paused. People hurt my feelings every day. But theres no such thing as the word feministophobe.
We have, in fact, begun surrendering in the West, and not just by buying into the notion that criticizing Islam is tantamount to attacking Muslims as people. We should shiver with revulsion at the example of multicultural tolerance with which the United Kingdom has furnished us. There, for Muslims who turn to them (for women, this is not necessarily a voluntary move), 85 Shariah councils dispense justice in family matters marriage and divorce, inheritance and domestic violence. That is, in matters in which girls and women are most vulnerable. (A campaign is underway to abolish the councils.) In pursuing this path of tolerance the United Kingdom has traduced Muslim women hoping for a decent life in a developed country, including those who just want to keep their clitorises safe from the savage ritual of female genital mutilation. The U.K. outlawed this in 1985, but families often send their young daughters back to the home country for a vacation, during which local butchers set to work slicing off their clitorises and sowing up their vaginas at times without anesthesia. A 2003 law would throw parents in jail for 14 years for forcing such a holiday on their daughters, but so far, no one has been convicted. The practice continues.
Who came up with the idea of establishing Shariah courts in the land of Shakespeare and Byron? Not Muslims angry at being discriminated against. No, none other than a good Christian man of the cloth the bland sobriquet should really be one of foul opprobrium the former Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams. In 2008 Williams declared that such a sickening beau geste toward (radical and not so radical) imams would lead to better community relations. This is the sort of multicultural tolerance beloved by all those men of faith (of whatever sect, and I do mean men) who slyly scheme or openly militate for the second-class status of women, for interference with a womans right to do as she pleases with her body, for the stigmatization (or worse) of sexual minorities, for a culture of shame attaching to sex, and for the child-abuse teaching in schools of ludicrous explanations about our entirely non-celestial origins. With bishops like Williams, who needs imams for enemies?
...
http://www.salon.com/2015/02/22/we_must_offend_religion_more_islam_christianity_and_our_tolerance_for_ancient_myths_harmful_ideas/
Cartoonist
(7,317 posts)For telling it like it is. Fire the truth at the Christians as well for their misogyny and homophobia. Let Pope Frank answer for his medieval shit.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)And I do mean men.
bvf
(6,604 posts)all the way through, and nicely summed up in the subtitle:
"Our enduring deference to religion, despite its toxicity and phony explanations for the cosmos, lets it survive."
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Oh, and Rowan Williams is a clown among English clerics, which is quite a feat.
onager
(9,356 posts)Oh, that gives me bad ideas about certain parts of DU. VERY bad ideas...
My favorite interfaith war is the probably the Albigensian Crusade. (A crusade by Xians against other Xians.)
I say that because the citizens of Toulouse struck a blow...heh...for equal rights, when their city was besieged by Simon IV de Montfort and his army.
As explained in "The Song of the Cathars" (a mangonel is a type of catapult):
And dragged with its platform from St Sernin.
It was operated by noblewomen, by little girls and men's wives,
And now a stone hit just where it was needed
Striking Count Simon on his steel helmet
Shattering his eyes, brains, and back teeth,
And splintering his forehead and jaw.
Bleeding and black, the Count dropped dead on the ground.
Simon was buried in a big crypt with full Xian honors, and a flowery epitaph commending him to Jebus. The author of the "Song" had a few things to say about that, too:
By wasting souls, and preaching murder,
By following evil counsels, and raising fires,
By ruining noblemen and besmirching paratge,
By pillaging the country, and by exalting Pride,
By stoking up wickedness and stifling good,
By massacring women and their infants,
A man can win Jesus in this world,
then Simon surely wears a crown, resplendent in heaven.
http://www.cathar.info/cathar_whoswho.htm
deucemagnet
(4,549 posts)Good read.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)Remember how the Church opposed rooting out fake relics? They knew, once you started with criticism of religion, things could go out of hand. That's why no religion tries to disprove other religions: Instead of disproving others, they try proving their own.
Inter-religious argument are still on the same level as inter-Christian arguments were a few centuries ago: When discussing contradictions in the Bible, the scholars never attacked the quote the other party cited. Instead they simply tried finding even more proof-positive quotes that supported their own claim.
Why? Because it was unthinkable that something in the Bible might be wrong.
Response to Warren Stupidity (Original post)
Pacifist Patriot This message was self-deleted by its author.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Well, there is "misogynist"..... a word thrown around some places on DU so much it practically means nothing.