October 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Previous Months






The Astonished Head Tee!
Buttons, Small and Bigger!
Chomskybat Magnet!
Proloxil T-shirts and Mugs!


Ba-Bow
Limerence (Falls In Waves)


Astonished Head: The Ad
Miserable Ovoid Creature


Current
Crygender
The Hacker Crackdown
The Ethics of Ambiguity
The New Goddess
In the Queue
Love and Limerence
A General Theory of Love
Labyrinth of Desire
The Second Sex
Decoding Gender in Science Fiction
Male Bodies, Women's Souls


The Aristocrats
The Blenster's Blog
Classical Values
The Colossus
Exit Zero
Fried Green al-Qaedas
Kate Evans' Blog
Protein Wisdom
Seablogger
Spiced Sass
Ten Fingers 6 Strings
through the moonroof
verb-ops
Virtual Occoquan
Waiting for Cassowary

BMEzine
ErosBlog
Fleshbot
Girl with a one-track mind
ModBlog
Susie Bright


Adventure Cycling
'BentRider Online
crazyguyonabike
Greenspeed USA
HP Velotechnik
Ken Kifer's Bike Pages
Nomadic Research Labs
Northeast Recumbents


boingboing
Dan's Data
Engadget
Gizmodo
Mozilla
Oh Gizmo!
OpenOffice
Slashdot
ThinkGeek
Treehugger
Ubuntu
Ubuntu Forums
Wired



Get Firefox
Opera


November 12, 2002

More casual anti-Western-religion "thinking," this time in the first paragraph of a book review by Mr. Peter Kurth:

"The next time someone tries to persuade you that Islam (for instance) is a 'backward' religion, you can refer them to Lawrence and Nancy Goldstone's 'Out of the Flames: The Remarkable Story of a Fearless Scholar, a Fatal Heresy, and One of the Rarest Books in the World.' The Goldstones' rousing title reflects both the style and confidence of their work: Bigots don't stand a chance against this brisk and wonderfully readable account of perfidy and murder in the Protestant Reformation."

While Mr. Kurth has discovered the 16th century crimes of Protestantism--say it isn't so!--he is apparently entirely unaware that heretics are still executed today. By Muslims.

This small fact, I think, properly reveals this paragraph--with its disingenuous "for instance"--as a portrait of politically correct self-indulgence. It's certainly fashionable and rhetorically satisfying to cry tu quoque and point at Western religion's past sins. But the key word here is "past."

When the major modern centers of a religion still practice as a matter of law the kind of atrocities that the West has spent the past 400 years successfully eliminating, I call that religion "backward." It's the very definition of the term. Show me evidence of real reformative progress in Islam, and I'll reconsider my "bigotry."

This is a sterling example of a peculiar attitude common in some circles of thought: the past sins of a culture/religion/country render present incarnations of that culture/religion/country morally impure, which in turn means that the culture/religion/country is unfit to make judgments about other cultures/religions/countries, to take action in the world, or to act in its own interests in any way.

Of course, such thinking only applies if the culture/religion/country in question is Western/Judeao-Christian/American. Only the Western world is held to such a standard of unattainable moral perfection, because--after all--the sins of other cultures are simply justifiable responses to Western oppression.

Mr. Kurth gives the book, with its graphic portrayals of the Big Bad Evil That Protestants Did, a glowing review.

Anyway. Off to get me peepers examined so I can get a new driver's license, and to purchase replacements for the then-new eyeglasses which I set down somewhere the first night I spent in my new house, and haven't seen since. In fact, I haven't seen much of anything since. Ba-dum-bum!



I say the Islamic nation states around the globe that bury adulterous women to their necks in the sand and stone them are still living in a closed box. And there are too many women who worship there, who live there and suffer and die from nationally enforced "Islamic religious laws". They need real help.

Islamic defiance and refusal to look at itself and make hard choices about what is best for its' own modern worshippers does more to damage itself and the nations that predominately pratice it than a single US bullet or bomb ever will. The countries that adopt for their own civil law the current brutal Islamic laws deserve every thing coming back to them. They are a danger to themselves and the world when they carry on like this.

America through the actions of its' own free people, with their bad ole WESTERN thinking, is at least doing something about bringing some of the injustices done by *Christian* leaders operating in the disasterous guise of "protecting" the image of a world-wide faith.

Every protester, whistle blower, and vicitm of the Catholic sexual abuse scandal would have been *permanently* silenced long ago if it we were in a nation-state operating in the name of protecting Islam and Islamic law from scandal and reform.

That is why I think much of Islam as it is practiced today stinks. Its' old abusive laws are irrelevant. They create untold misery and suffering. Islamic religions are NOT immune from the need to reform any more than Christian religions were or currently are.

Thank you Ian, and take that, Mr. Kurth.

Ironically, I regard the faithful in any religion as spiritually weak.
Still not sure why I despise religion so, probably repressed memories or some such. Maybe it was that time in high school, when a group of christians tried to gang-save me, and when I objected, got the bejeezus beat out of me. True story, the guy I was with beat feet and left me to these goons. I should dig out the pix and police report from storage and scan it.
I do think religion dulls the spirit and is detrimental to humankind.

Sorry to hear your mishandling by some wacko's Sylvain, forceful evangelism is just wrong on so many levels, but I have to disagree that religious beliefs themselves are a sign of a weak mind/spirit.

I also once held that belief after growing up and rejecting the teachings I was raised with, it has however become more clear to me as I age that every human has to operate given a base set of morals of their own choosing. Alot of people do not question that which they are raised with, because it works for them. That is not a sign of weakness, because everyone makes a choice on what to believe. Flat-earthers, Randians, Communists, Marxists, Islamics, Christians, Physicists, etc etc: They all make decisions on how they are going to operate in the world, it doesn't make one weak to choose a religion to follow rather than pure science (or anything else). Frankly, if you take the hocus pocus out of most religions they have the same general basis for getting along with everyone else (granted there are exceptions) that most americans learn in preschool.

I'm not advocating moral relativism here either, I am not saying that no single system or belief is equivalent to any/all others, but choosing one to live by, if its really done and adhered to is not weakness, its strength. There is strength in conviction, even if it is wrong on many levels.

I'm also not going to advocate any one system over any other, many are equivalent in results of general happiness of followers, and ability to get along with others. Many are not so good at that, humans in general have been eliminating the later for thousands of years, and we'll continue to do so. Those that cannot get along will be eliminated, or changed so that they can.

I'm willing to bet that you have a standard by which you live your life, whether its based on religion or not, if you live by a set of principles, it is a strength, not a weakness, no matter what name you may call them.

Nicely put, John. I'd add that most religions are also chiefly occupied with explaining some big questions: why we're here, what we ought to do while we're here to get the most out of it and give the most to it. I don't think one necessarily needs to get this stuff from an organized religion per se, but I do like the fact that religion's aim is to pose these questions. Whether the answers are so simple is another question, and one that of course has to be answered on an individual level.

But I like the questions. And I am occasionally warmed by the idea that some of most beautiful, carefully made structures in the world have been made to honor and provide a place to contemplate these ideas.

The flip side of all of this, of course, is the mistaken belief that what works for oneself must then work for everyone else, and that to "save" others, violence is an acceptable means. Sylvain had the terrible misfortune to experience this "dark side" of the coin in a direct and no doubt terrifying manner. As have many others in human history (and now).

We suck. We are wonderful. No wonder the chief comment made by alien species encountering humans for the first time (in Star Trek, in Contact, and most sci-fi) is invariably: what a curious species you are. Of course, that's a comment written by humans imagining how others would see us.

Sigh. This is a lot of blather for 8:59 am.

Yes, well said indeed.
Perhaps it's the interpretation of metaphors as literal that bothers me. As to weakness, I feel that adhering to one particular ideal closes one off from other potentially more beneficial or at least more logical, ideals. Jesus had a lot of cool things to say. To worship him as God is to misinterpret his message, and I find that very sad, because Bhudda, Zoroaster, THOTH, and many others had very cool things to say too. So to me, a Seeker has more spiritual fortitude than one who clings to a specific, narrow religious construct.
I am biased against christians because of my experience with them, I realize that. I may never get over it, either.
It is mentioned that it is the function of religion to attempt to frame Big Questions. I would add that there is an underlying purpose of controlling and/or suppressing certain thought processes. The bible was altered and edited for this purpose. The books that confront the Big Questions were considered too controversial, too contradictory to the current mindset to be included. It certainly wasn't a question of brevity where the Bible's concerned. The Book of Enoch is a beautiful piece of work, as is the Gospel of St. Thomas......
I heard the other day that the name "Jesus" was very common in that time. I can't help but wistfully wonder if everyone is following the words of a "rogue Jesus", a man who hallucinate regularly and had an enormous Ego. These days, such a man would be institutionalized at the least, or incinerated by the ATF at the most.
Guess that's the modern-day equivalent of crucifixion.

Just went back and read the most recent post. Sylvain's point about the element of control, and narrowing of possibilities inherent in following a religion whose precepts are not only organized but also set down in writing is well-taken. Of course that's what happens. It's part of the problem of living in a tribe. There's always a tendency among a group of humans to want to not only control actions but edit the range of vision experienced by tribe members. It's fear of the unknown, or it's an inherent urge of the pecking order, or something. But there's nothing anyone can do to really stop someone else from nibbling a little bit of this religion and a little bit of that to construct a private smorgasbord of belief.

They can want to practice thought policing all they want, but it's just not on. That's why the good whatever-you-want-to-call-it has endowed us with this here handy trusty hard bone barrier we call the skull. Keeps the outside out and the inside in.

Please post more comments, I will visit this site again soon.

What a nice blog.