Concern widens over 'anti-religion' book

[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

Jan,

quote:

---

Everyone on this board should read this author's whole article.
To quote "It is a beautiful story, and a Christian story. It is a story that could prompt believers to reflect on their faith. It is just not a story that everyone may want you to read."

---

Thanks for posting that. It makes me feel better about the work as a whole. However, I still think that there are problems conveying the subtlety of these ideas to children.

By the time they're able to see the difference between the Church, its customs and culture, its problems then they're probably too old to read such a book anyway.

Does anyone know what age range is targeted for these books ? It seems like under 10 to me, but I'm not a parent...

Michelle,

quote:

---

Oh, I'm sorry. From now on, I'll call religious book censors "religious fuckwads".

Does that make you feel better? And here, I'll type really, really slowly so that hopefully the point will be understood. Not all religious people are religious nutjobs or religious fuckwads. Only the ones who ban books because of their religion. And teach children that people from other religions are going to hell. And lobby against birth control and condoms because of their religion. And try to control women's bodies because of their religion. And are homophobic because they think God hates fags.

---

Ok, so I can use the term Islamic nutjob, idiot woman, or black idiot or similarly hyphenated hate term to get away with saying whatever I like then ?

You can set the rules, but I don't have to say that it's ok with me, and it's not.

quote:

---

Do you do those things because of your religion? No? Then I didn't mean you. I meant the other ones. The fuckwads. And the nutjobs.

---

Hyphenate away, then, and if you rationalization makes you feel better than I suppose that works for you.

I know a lot of religious people, and members of any group that make the world a better place and I don't like to let these kind of smears go uncommented.

quote:

---

What a pile of horseshit. I don't tolerate any religious fuckwad trying to tell me what I can do with my body, or using public funds to ban books or teach kids to hate gays and discriminate against women. That's not tolerance, that's being a doormat.

---

The 'public funds' argument was a great one that Mike Harris liked to use to rationalize whatever he wanted to do. By calling people 'taxpayers' we turn society into a set of cash transaction relationships, rather than a community of peoples that strive do to better individually and as a group.

As I said to Unionist, these are my feelings on the issue and I don't have much to add, nor do I want to get into a long thread of rationalizing why it's ok to use the term 'religious nutjobs' but not make fun of someone's race or nationality.

I've been there before, though it's usually with right-wing types. Arguing these types of things with progressives tends to depress me.

It's not progressive to let religious flakes use public funds to push hateful beliefs on children. It's just stupid. Sorry, but there's a big old progressive movement out there that has been fighting religious fascism for centuries. It's why we no longer have heretics burned at the stake, and other religious persecution, at least not here, thank dog.

As for "Islamic nutjob", there's really no need, as "religious nutjobs" pretty much cover anyone, whether it's the occasional Muslim who believes in stoning women who have sex outside of marriage, or the occasional fundamentalist Christian who believes in book banning.

I didn't target one religion, and I didn't even target everyone who is religious.

You're starting to remind me of those homophobic trolls who used to come to babble and whine because we refused to "tolerate" their hate posts against gays and lesbians on babble. That argument may be fun when you're wanking around in a first year philosophy seminar, but in real life, progressives are not required to "tolerate" people who spread hate because God Told Them To.

[ 27 November 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

M Spector

quote:

---

If it's possible to use faith to help people around the world, then I'm definitely interested, because I want to help people around the world.

Please tell us what faith we may adopt for this purpose, and explain how exactly such faith on our part will help such people.

---

Yes, it is possible. Many faiths may assist you in helping people. I advise you to peruse a few and pick a good one.

Michelle,

quote:

---

You're starting to remind me of those homophobic trolls who used to come to babble and whine because we refused to "tolerate" their hate posts against gays and lesbians on babble. That argument may be fun when you're wanking around in a first year philosophy seminar, but in real life, progressives are not required to "tolerate" people who spread hate because God Told Them To.

---

I'm sorry, but I would label people who are able to rationalize away their prejudices as more philosophical than me.

I'm not a troll, nor am I homophobic. I have marched for gay rights, and even been persecuted as being gay, although I am straight.

I guess we both have learned that not all progressives are in lock step with each other...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
[b]I'm not a troll, nor am I homophobic. I have marched for gay rights, and even been persecuted as being gay, although I am straight.[/b]

---

I didn't say you were either. I said you remind me of them, because they kept posting over and over again that people on babble have to be "tolerant" of people who hate gays, etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
[b]Yes, it is possible. Many faiths may assist you in helping people. I advise you to peruse a few and pick a good one.[/b]

---

Okay, you're keeping the Good News to yourself.

Not very Christian of you.

I read the books last year, and 10-12 is a little young; my 12 year old picked up The Golden Compass recently, and she's finding it a bit challenging. Teens and older, I'd say.

And I'm all in favour of the book ban. Look what it did for [i]Catcher in the Rye.[/i] What with all the fuss, kids will be reading the trilogy in larger numbers than ever.

I was answering your request:

quote:

---

Please tell us what faith we may adopt for this purpose...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
[b]I can't believe that wikipedia didn't include Ian McEwan in their list of atheist authors. Outspoken atheist and winner of many literary prizes.[/b]

---

Or Umberto Eco!

Charlotte

MS,

quote:

---

Except that you didn't answer it at all.

In response to my very specific question you made some general suggestion about "perusing" a few faiths and picking one.

And the only reason I asked is that you had been touting the benefits of a "religious background" for helping people around the world.

---

That's a slight rewording of what I said, but what exactly are you looking for here ?

Yes, faith can be an excellent motivator to encourage good works. I know people who have experienced this. No, I don't have a specific faith to 'push' as I'm not religious myself.

I'm not sure what else I can give you.

So, Michelle, would you agree that your argument--that religious people who do cruel and oppressive things because of their religion can appropriately be called "religious nutjobs" or "religious fuckwads"--might apply to atheists who do cruel and oppressive things because of their atheism? I'm thinking here of Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, who argue that the West should use torture and the most grotesque imperial means to impose their will upon "islamofascists", who do their best to cultivate intolerance against all devout Muslims, and who explicitly ground their arguments in their own atheism? Is it appopriate to refer to such people, and to those like them, as "atheist fuckwads" and "atheist nutjobs"? Do you agree that, by your criteria, they are "atheist fuckwads" and "atheist nutjobs"?

[ 01 December 2007: Message edited by: Michael Nenonen ]

Oldgoat: So, you don't see a constituency for Hitchens and Harris? Have you noted the popularity of their books lately? Or checked out the posts made by their supporters on various discussion boards? Or noticed how often they're invited as commentators in major media? There is certainly an enthusiastic audience for their views among atheists who are looking for a supposedly non-religious reason to demonize religious people in general, and Muslims in particular. Their supporters vote and are politically active, which makes them a constituency. Their brand of atheism is an ideological buttress for neo-conservatism, just like fundamentalist versions of Christianity and Judaism are ideological buttresses for neo-conservatism.

As for book-burning, no, they have not advocated that. They have, however, advocated torture and Western imperialism, they have dismissed the most wrenching cries for justice from Muslim countries as expressions of barbaric irrationality, and they have explicitly...and I have to stress this, explicitly...justified this advocacy with atheist rhetoric. Hitchens has gone so far to use atheist rhetoric to justify genocide, as you can find here:

[url=http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11768]http://www.antiwar.com/ju...

Given this, while they may qualify in general as "fascist fuckwads" and "fascist nutjobs," they qualify in particular as "atheist fuckwads" and "atheist nutjobs."

[ 01 December 2007: Message edited by: Michael Nenonen ]

Michael, you missed my point entirely! Of course they have a constituency, or they wouldn't sell books or get on TV.

They are not advocating torture because it is demanded or supported by atheism. I'm an atheist, and have never felt that they in any way spoke for me. There are people in many religions who support all sorts of horrid things using their religion as a justification. The fact that a close and scholarly reading of their basic religios texts would reveal them to be wrong notwithstanding. Close and scholarly readings never worked up a good mob or got the vote out.

[ 01 December 2007: Message edited by: oldgoat ]

Unionist: Please take the time to understand my argument. It's shouldn't be hard, I'm not using big words.

I'm not advocating calling anyone "atheist fuckwads" or "atheist nutjobs." I'm saying that the logic Michelle was using to justify the use of the terms "religious fuckwads" and "religious nutjobs" was equally applicable to people like Hitchens and Harris and their followers. If Michelle doesn't think that the terms "atheist fuckwads" and "atheist nutjobs" should be used to describe Harris, Hitchens, etc, then it seems to me that she should retract her use of the term "religious fuckwads" and "religious nutjobs".

In this case, what's good for the theist goose is good for the atheist gander.

Oldgoat and Unionist, if you think that to use the terms "atheist fuckwad" and "atheist nutjob" to describe Hitchens and Harris slanders ALL atheists, then do you similarly think that Michelle's use of the terms "religious fuckwad" and "religious nutjob" slanders ALL religious people?

[ 01 December 2007: Message edited by: Michael Nenonen ]

Well, you heard the grand Poo-Bah, Michael Hardner.

For future reference, it's okay in threads like this to use the terms "religious fuckwads" and "religious nutjobs" in response to the actions of a subset of Catholics, but it's not okay to question this use within the thread in which these terms are used, and it's not okay to use the terms "atheist nutjobs" or "atheist fuckwads" in response to the actions of a subset of atheists. Whereas the use of the terms "religious fuckwads" and "religious nutjobs" does not imply that all religious people are "fuckwads" and "nutjobs", the use of the terms "atheist fuckwads" and "atheist nutjobs" DOES imply that all atheists are "fuckwads" and "nutjobs."

Furthermore, if you come anywhere close to making
your point through the use of logic, rest assured that you will be accused of derailing the thread and directed to "rabble reactions" so that serious atheists can continue to launch half-baked, unchallenged, and sarcastic attacks on religion and the religiously-minded at their leisure.

[ 01 December 2007: Message edited by: Michael Nenonen ]

Grand Poo-Bah? Ok, I can live with that. I confess in this thread to have perhaps lost track of which Michael I was talking to. Would one of you be a dear and change your name to Larry or Walter or something? Ta very much.

I'm glad this little matter is closed as far as this thread goes, except that any part of Michelle's post upthread which could be interpreted as an admonition about what flies on a progressive board still stands.

You can be my Li'l poo-pah any time. All this poo-bah talk will have Makwa in here.

How about an answer, M. Nenonen? Do you support the removal of Pullman's books from these public schools? What about the removal of the teachers' resource guide?

My reading of Jesus indicates that he would have been merciless in his critique of such anti-human activities. He would forgive them, of course, but he would at least have a comment to make. How about you?

Philip Pullman is on CBC Radio One [b]right now[/b] (Eastern time), being interviewed by Eleanor Wachtel. And [url=http://cbc.ca/writersandcompany/media/071125_pullman1.ram]here[/url] is the audio of last week's part one.

[ 02 December 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]