78s, CAT NEWS, MERV GRIFFIN RECORDS, INCISIVE POLITICAL AND SOCIAL COMMENTARY. PLEASE NOTE THAT, DUE TO LIMITED STORAGE BANDWIDTH, MY MP3s HAVE A LIMITED SHELF LIFE--GET THEM WHILE YOU CAN! I DON'T KEEP MY MP3s (I HAVE THE ORIGINALS)--HENCE, THEY'RE NOT AROUND TO RESTORE. I AM NOT, NOR HAVE I EVER BEEN, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE INTERNET, PAID OR OTHERWISE.
I consider the Freedom From Religion Foundation extremely courageous, if more than a bit doctrinaire.
On the other hand, the other side? Absolute delusional psychopaths. The fact that they use tortured logic shows how they could become so lackadaisical when their anointed fake-KKKhristian leadership in Washington DC resorts (or races hungrily) to employ sadism and torture in the pursuit not of truth, but strict propaganda.
In other words, torture is nothing but an end in itself, since the "information" it produces is wholly unreliable and leads to no legal convictions under the law. Torture today, retorture tomorrow, torture forever, just so long as the prisons and the screams aren't in my backyard.
Sickening. Grotesque. These scum are a plague. You'd have to be courageous to take them on, even if the Supreme Court ends up dismissing your challenge for cowardly political reasons.
Glad I live in a big city where we don't have to see silly signs like this.
Time for humans to move past religion as an explanation for our world. Believing in Jesus is only slightly more ridiculous than believing that "Thor" creates thunder, or that a tooth fairy comes and leaves a dollar under your pillow.
The logic of blaming religion (or some wing thereof) for the neocons' rise to power and their behavior in office escapes me--there doesn't seem to be any, really. Last time I checked, the neocons were handing over power and money to Wall St., select defense contractors, Big Oil, and any number of close, rich buddies. Someone will someday have to explain to me why, given the flow of power and corruption, the religious are scapegoated 24/7. Makes absolutely no sense to me.
Anon.,
Far out.
Dennis,
Good point. After all, if you scroll down my blog, you're not going to see any music. I mean, when do I ever post music?
When the entertainment blogosphere stops making swipes at religion and stops its Lenny Bruce/Raymond Scott worship, maybe I'll cease with the extra comments.
Also, not to be techical, but cats have nothing to do with music, either. They don't even respond to it.
As Americans we're free to be devout, casually religious, or atheist, according to our conscience. The freedom to practice any or no religion is what makes America great.
Lee, keep on writing whatever you feel moved to. It's your blog after all. Thanks for all the music!
Lee, old friend, I can give you an angle on the way atheists blame religion for the state of the nation. The kind of voter the GOP has played like a fiddle is the kind of voter who is motivated to vote by the introduction of anti-gay and anti-abortion platforms and legislation. (Counter-gay? Counter-abortion?) The Republicans have adopted buzzwords signaling their counter-liberal agenda, and they cite the Bible and God himself (not Jesus, interestingly) in their message. Such voting confers political power to them.
It all makes such a hash of meaning to confuse the political and the religious in this way, but for pete's sake, the Republicans started it. I blame Lee Atwater, who had race issues as well as Daddy issues, and drew inspiration from them for his successful political strategies. It's been the playbook for some forty years, since Abbie Hoffman got pinched in Chicago.
WHEN YOU TALK REALLY LOUD IT MAKES YOUR RIGHTER, AND WE JUST DISCOVERED THAT WE CAN PUT EVEN BIGGER FONTS ON BILLBOARDS!!1!
I grant that the billboards by Christians are ridiculous: they make me a little bit embarassed and even more pissed off for how much more difficult they make my job as a halfway intelligent and rational Christian.
However, the Freedom From Civil Rights for Religious People's Foundation aren't exactly raising the bar of discourse. Evangelicals shout, Antitheists shout louder, and both would be an absolute disaster if put in any position of authority.
My billboard? "ATTN: Fundamentalists. ATTN: Antitheists. You are both stupid. Leave us alone."
Trite isn't the word I'd use. The Freedom From... folks appear to be the sort who think the establishment clause of the Constitution--which forbids the formation of a state church--was intended as some kind of public gag order on religion. I don't appreciate their fanatical reading of church/state separation, especially as someone who would never support any censorship directed at them. But I've learned not to expect the same courtesy from their court.
Cory gets the point of my post--that the signs represent two ridiculous extremes slugging it out in similarly ridiculous fashion. We have two sides assuring us that their way of seeing and thinking is the only way. I feel equally sorry for both groups.
It seems to me that freedom of religion and freedom from religion are incompatible aims. One is certainly entitled to have no religion, or to follow a doctrine of Antitheism or worship the FSM for all it matters, and to have a public and political voice to that effect. That's what freedom of religion is and I'd get behind that.
When you start saying that other people should be gagged - both in the public and political spheres - because you don't want to hear about their religion in any way, shape or form, or allow religious people to be involved in the processes of a democratic society, then you're doing just as much to legislate your beliefs as the worst theocrat. That is freedom from religion and it is anti-democratic.
In the case of the billboards, it's basically the foolish exercise of two competing sects of theocrats. They're permitted by freedom of religion to do it, regardless of how annoying and stupid it makes both parties look.
Take, for instance, my annoyance with the constant promotion of sports culture in our society--at work, on the TV news, in political speeches, etc. But I nevertheless have freedom from sports--i.e., the option of not playing it or watching it. But I *don't* have the right to demand that all references to sports be stopped on account of my feelings. If there's some prominent feature of our democratic culture I don't care for, I have every right to not participate, but no right to issue a shut-down order.
You'll notice, by the way, that many of the folks calling for a shut-down of religion would have us believe that any exposure to faith, however mild, is deadly (in any variety of ways). I wish someone would produce scientific evidence to substantiate such an absurd (and, frankly, magical) charge. Esp. given that the charge-makers are always talking about logic and reason. Where's the logic and reason in holding to unproven assertions, such as the allegedly deadly effect of religion on people? Show us the lab results, detail the tests. But, no, they give circumstantial and anecdotal evidence--evidence which THEY would refuse to accept from someone else. Another variation on Do as I say, not what I do.
I'm referring, by the way, to neo-atheist authors and the n.a.'s I've sparred with on line. I'm assuming they don't represent all atheists, any more than anti-gay flat-earthers represent all believers.
MY cat certainly responded to music. Every time I tried to practice the pennywhistle, she sat yowling @ my feet. Talk about a music critic! ;-)
As for the subject matter, well, as an atheist who is bombarded by the ingrained religious nature of much of our society, I do say it can make one want to stand up & get extreme sometime. We are only 10 % of the population, we simply do not have the media attention, or lung capacity, or certainly the mainstream access of the majority. I feel much the same way as a non-tv person living in a world of public-blaring tvs- yes, I can stick to places that don't have them, but those are few & far between. I am also a member of the glbt minority in Straight-majority world, constantly being told by the overwhelming weight of the evidence that I am marginal @ best, wrong @ worst. Even THERE, though I get more recognition & support from mainstream & media than I do as an atheist. & finally, to co-opt your own metaphor, I am a non-sports person in a sports oriented society. Yes, I can choose to ignore the endless references & sports talk, & no, I'm not saying that I don't want people to discuss what is important to them, but a little more respect, rather than blank stares or outright hostility when I want to discuss what is important to me- theatre, classical music, visual arts- where is the support for THOSE subjects? Schools don't cut sports programmes, they cut arts programmes.
Anyway, please continue to know that I want you to express yourself. I like YOU, even if I don't always agree w/ what you say. I appreciate your support of the GLBT community. Please know that you ALSO have reasonable, moderate atheist readers, not all of whom want you to "just shut up," many of whom value your viewpoint, & most of whom could use a little reasonable support themselves. -Karen
Back in my "Nature of Religion" class, when we looked at different definitions of and explanations for religion, Karl Marx became a bit of a joke. We would all pull him out as the best example of what not to do when describing religion, the worst example of taking a local phenomenon and trying to build a universal theory about it. When he said "religion is the opiate of the masses", it begged he question of "who's religion?" The answer was the religion of the bourgeoise mercantile German Protestants of whom Marx had a particular and definite dislike.
It doesn't help Antitheists' case when their luminaries are publishing books with patently absurd titles like God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Does that include the religions that don't have a monotheistic metaphysics? How does one even test the claim "poisons everything"? Was there no virtue, no selflessness, no compassion, no ethic of civil liberty, no neighbourliness, no charitability, no love of freedom, no curiousity, and no wonder resting in the breast of any traditionally religious person ever? That these are all the sole domain of Antitheists and that any progress must be demonstrated as being secular at the heart of it, simply on principle?
Nor does it help that, in their skepticism, they break one of the basic rules of skepticism: beware of experts outside their area of expertise. Evolutionary biologists are certainly entitled to their opinions, but outside of evolutionary biology their opinions carry no badge of intrinsic merit. Dawkins is a poor theologian, a builder of straw men, and should be judged as such even regardless of where one stands on the questions.
Then you have the Freedom From Sporting Events Foundation, which is aping fundamentalism by reducing the Queen of the Sciences to bumper stickers and billboards. These are the "Brights"? These books, tracts, blog posts and so on read like a laundry list of logical fallacies, and I'm not sure who should feel more insulted: traditionally religious persons who are being told they are irrational by these schmucks or atheists who are being represented by them.
The sports analogy is a good one though, and I may have to plagiarise it in the future. Unfortunately, most of the Antitheists I have the misfortune of knowing are rather insular, Internetsish types who would probably agree that sports should be a "private" thing with no place in the public sphere. Sports, after all, poison everything and making children take phys. ed. is a form of abuse.
This was funny. As we celebrate the birth of Christ (The Reason for the Season) it is always amusing to hear the extremists on both sides. Fortunately both sides can speak in our country. Otherwise the Constitution would have to be ripped up. (Although they are working on this.) Our founding fathers believed in the same God as you and I. It is obvious in the words they spoke and wrote. Separation of Church and State only meant "No State Church".
Now to cause trouble. ;-) George Washington publicly thanked God. Why does the Atheist think I should not be able to?
A (late, sorry) Merry Christmas to you, too! As we speak, the weather around these parts has become spring-like. But not for long.
Yes, it's hilarious how some atheists think our founders despised religion and/or never had a supportive word to say about it. A while back, on a debate board, I put up some very pro-faith comments by Jefferson and others, and I was accused of making them up. People with absolute points of view always think the rest of us share their black vs. white way of thinking.
That our founders regarded religion in a nuanced way is too shocking for them to consider. Jefferson and Co. could only have been Bible-thumping fanatics or 18th-century versions of dawkins. One or the other!
That's the essence of neo-atheist thinking--up or down, black or white, in or out, yes or no, true or false, is/isn't. Kind of like digital, no? 010101010. Except that human thinking ought to be based on something more advanced than on/off, at least in my opinion.
17 comments:
I consider the Freedom From Religion Foundation extremely courageous, if more than a bit doctrinaire.
On the other hand, the other side? Absolute delusional psychopaths. The fact that they use tortured logic shows how they could become so lackadaisical when their anointed fake-KKKhristian leadership in Washington DC resorts (or races hungrily) to employ sadism and torture in the pursuit not of truth, but strict propaganda.
In other words, torture is nothing but an end in itself, since the "information" it produces is wholly unreliable and leads to no legal convictions under the law. Torture today, retorture tomorrow, torture forever, just so long as the prisons and the screams aren't in my backyard.
Sickening. Grotesque. These scum are a plague. You'd have to be courageous to take them on, even if the Supreme Court ends up dismissing your challenge for cowardly political reasons.
Glad I live in a big city where we don't have to see silly signs like this.
Time for humans to move past religion as an explanation for our world. Believing in Jesus is only slightly more ridiculous than believing that "Thor" creates thunder, or that a tooth fairy comes and leaves a dollar under your pillow.
Originally I thought this was a music blog.
How many more cans of worms do you have on your shelf ready to be opened?
And why don't you initiate a new blog especially for your rants and leave this one for cats and music?
Litlgrey,
The logic of blaming religion (or some wing thereof) for the neocons' rise to power and their behavior in office escapes me--there doesn't seem to be any, really. Last time I checked, the neocons were handing over power and money to Wall St., select defense contractors, Big Oil, and any number of close, rich buddies. Someone will someday have to explain to me why, given the flow of power and corruption, the religious are scapegoated 24/7. Makes absolutely no sense to me.
Anon.,
Far out.
Dennis,
Good point. After all, if you scroll down my blog, you're not going to see any music. I mean, when do I ever post music?
When the entertainment blogosphere stops making swipes at religion and stops its Lenny Bruce/Raymond Scott worship, maybe I'll cease with the extra comments.
Also, not to be techical, but cats have nothing to do with music, either. They don't even respond to it.
As Americans we're free to be devout, casually religious, or atheist, according to our conscience. The freedom to practice any or no religion is what makes America great.
Lee, keep on writing whatever you feel moved to. It's your blog after all. Thanks for all the music!
Thank you!
Lee, old friend, I can give you an angle on the way atheists blame religion for the state of the nation. The kind of voter the GOP has played like a fiddle is the kind of voter who is motivated to vote by the introduction of anti-gay and anti-abortion platforms and legislation. (Counter-gay? Counter-abortion?) The Republicans have adopted buzzwords signaling their counter-liberal agenda, and they cite the Bible and God himself (not Jesus, interestingly) in their message. Such voting confers political power to them.
It all makes such a hash of meaning to confuse the political and the religious in this way, but for pete's sake, the Republicans started it. I blame Lee Atwater, who had race issues as well as Daddy issues, and drew inspiration from them for his successful political strategies. It's been the playbook for some forty years, since Abbie Hoffman got pinched in Chicago.
WHEN YOU TALK REALLY LOUD IT MAKES YOUR RIGHTER, AND WE JUST DISCOVERED THAT WE CAN PUT EVEN BIGGER FONTS ON BILLBOARDS!!1!
I grant that the billboards by Christians are ridiculous: they make me a little bit embarassed and even more pissed off for how much more difficult they make my job as a halfway intelligent and rational Christian.
However, the Freedom From Civil Rights for Religious People's Foundation aren't exactly raising the bar of discourse. Evangelicals shout, Antitheists shout louder, and both would be an absolute disaster if put in any position of authority.
My billboard?
"ATTN: Fundamentalists.
ATTN: Antitheists.
You are both stupid.
Leave us alone."
"Freedom From Civil Rights for Religious People's Foundation aren't exactly raising the bar of discourse."
Neither does trite renaming of organizations.
Trite isn't the word I'd use. The Freedom From... folks appear to be the sort who think the establishment clause of the Constitution--which forbids the formation of a state church--was intended as some kind of public gag order on religion. I don't appreciate their fanatical reading of church/state separation, especially as someone who would never support any censorship directed at them. But I've learned not to expect the same courtesy from their court.
Cory gets the point of my post--that the signs represent two ridiculous extremes slugging it out in similarly ridiculous fashion. We have two sides assuring us that their way of seeing and thinking is the only way. I feel equally sorry for both groups.
It seems to me that freedom of religion and freedom from religion are incompatible aims. One is certainly entitled to have no religion, or to follow a doctrine of Antitheism or worship the FSM for all it matters, and to have a public and political voice to that effect. That's what freedom of religion is and I'd get behind that.
When you start saying that other people should be gagged - both in the public and political spheres - because you don't want to hear about their religion in any way, shape or form, or allow religious people to be involved in the processes of a democratic society, then you're doing just as much to legislate your beliefs as the worst theocrat. That is freedom from religion and it is anti-democratic.
In the case of the billboards, it's basically the foolish exercise of two competing sects of theocrats. They're permitted by freedom of religion to do it, regardless of how annoying and stupid it makes both parties look.
What you said. Exactly.
Take, for instance, my annoyance with the constant promotion of sports culture in our society--at work, on the TV news, in political speeches, etc. But I nevertheless have freedom from sports--i.e., the option of not playing it or watching it. But I *don't* have the right to demand that all references to sports be stopped on account of my feelings. If there's some prominent feature of our democratic culture I don't care for, I have every right to not participate, but no right to issue a shut-down order.
You'll notice, by the way, that many of the folks calling for a shut-down of religion would have us believe that any exposure to faith, however mild, is deadly (in any variety of ways). I wish someone would produce scientific evidence to substantiate such an absurd (and, frankly, magical) charge. Esp. given that the charge-makers are always talking about logic and reason. Where's the logic and reason in holding to unproven assertions, such as the allegedly deadly effect of religion on people? Show us the lab results, detail the tests. But, no, they give circumstantial and anecdotal evidence--evidence which THEY would refuse to accept from someone else. Another variation on Do as I say, not what I do.
I'm referring, by the way, to neo-atheist authors and the n.a.'s I've sparred with on line. I'm assuming they don't represent all atheists, any more than anti-gay flat-earthers represent all believers.
MY cat certainly responded to music. Every time I tried to practice the pennywhistle, she sat yowling @ my feet. Talk about a music critic! ;-)
As for the subject matter, well, as an atheist who is bombarded by the ingrained religious nature of much of our society, I do say it can make one want to stand up & get extreme sometime. We are only 10 % of the population, we simply do not have the media attention, or lung capacity, or certainly the mainstream access of the majority. I feel much the same way as a non-tv person living in a world of public-blaring tvs- yes, I can stick to places that don't have them, but those are few & far between. I am also a member of the glbt minority in Straight-majority world, constantly being told by the overwhelming weight of the evidence that I am marginal @ best, wrong @ worst. Even THERE, though I get more recognition & support from mainstream & media than I do as an atheist. & finally, to co-opt your own metaphor, I am a non-sports person in a sports oriented society. Yes, I can choose to ignore the endless references & sports talk, & no, I'm not saying that I don't want people to discuss what is important to them, but a little more respect, rather than blank stares or outright hostility when I want to discuss what is important to me- theatre, classical music, visual arts- where is the support for THOSE subjects? Schools don't cut sports programmes, they cut arts programmes.
Anyway, please continue to know that I want you to express yourself. I like YOU, even if I don't always agree w/ what you say. I appreciate your support of the GLBT community. Please know that you ALSO have reasonable, moderate atheist readers, not all of whom want you to "just shut up," many of whom value your viewpoint, & most of whom could use a little reasonable support themselves. -Karen
Back in my "Nature of Religion" class, when we looked at different definitions of and explanations for religion, Karl Marx became a bit of a joke. We would all pull him out as the best example of what not to do when describing religion, the worst example of taking a local phenomenon and trying to build a universal theory about it. When he said "religion is the opiate of the masses", it begged he question of "who's religion?" The answer was the religion of the bourgeoise mercantile German Protestants of whom Marx had a particular and definite dislike.
It doesn't help Antitheists' case when their luminaries are publishing books with patently absurd titles like God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Does that include the religions that don't have a monotheistic metaphysics? How does one even test the claim "poisons everything"? Was there no virtue, no selflessness, no compassion, no ethic of civil liberty, no neighbourliness, no charitability, no love of freedom, no curiousity, and no wonder resting in the breast of any traditionally religious person ever? That these are all the sole domain of Antitheists and that any progress must be demonstrated as being secular at the heart of it, simply on principle?
Nor does it help that, in their skepticism, they break one of the basic rules of skepticism: beware of experts outside their area of expertise. Evolutionary biologists are certainly entitled to their opinions, but outside of evolutionary biology their opinions carry no badge of intrinsic merit. Dawkins is a poor theologian, a builder of straw men, and should be judged as such even regardless of where one stands on the questions.
Then you have the Freedom From Sporting Events Foundation, which is aping fundamentalism by reducing the Queen of the Sciences to bumper stickers and billboards. These are the "Brights"? These books, tracts, blog posts and so on read like a laundry list of logical fallacies, and I'm not sure who should feel more insulted: traditionally religious persons who are being told they are irrational by these schmucks or atheists who are being represented by them.
The sports analogy is a good one though, and I may have to plagiarise it in the future. Unfortunately, most of the Antitheists I have the misfortune of knowing are rather insular, Internetsish types who would probably agree that sports should be a "private" thing with no place in the public sphere. Sports, after all, poison everything and making children take phys. ed. is a form of abuse.
Hi Lee,
This was funny. As we celebrate the birth of Christ (The Reason for the Season) it is always amusing to hear the extremists on both sides.
Fortunately both sides can speak in our country. Otherwise the Constitution would have to be ripped up. (Although they are working on this.)
Our founding fathers believed in the same God as you and I. It is obvious in the words they spoke and wrote.
Separation of Church and State only meant "No State Church".
Now to cause trouble. ;-)
George Washington publicly thanked God. Why does the Atheist think I should not be able to?
Merry Christmas,
Dennis
Only the Catholic Roman Churh is the very christian religion. Convert yourself.
Dennis,
A (late, sorry) Merry Christmas to you, too! As we speak, the weather around these parts has become spring-like. But not for long.
Yes, it's hilarious how some atheists think our founders despised religion and/or never had a supportive word to say about it. A while back, on a debate board, I put up some very pro-faith comments by Jefferson and others, and I was accused of making them up. People with absolute points of view always think the rest of us share their black vs. white way of thinking.
That our founders regarded religion in a nuanced way is too shocking for them to consider. Jefferson and Co. could only have been Bible-thumping fanatics or 18th-century versions of dawkins. One or the other!
That's the essence of neo-atheist thinking--up or down, black or white, in or out, yes or no, true or false, is/isn't. Kind of like digital, no? 010101010. Except that human thinking ought to be based on something more advanced than on/off, at least in my opinion.
ConvertYourself,
I'll get right on it. Thanks.
Post a Comment