Mirai
08-19-2007, 06:31 PM
*taken from a Myspace thread made by a member named ..::[Free Your Mind]::..*
In the 12th century after the supposed birth of a man who may or may not have existed, may or may not have been capable of performing magic, and who was probably not white but is portrayed as a white man anyway, the Catholic church began a series of campaigns against pagans, non-Christians, and anybody else labeled as heretics for not agreeing with them, giving thousands of people a simple choice: convert or die. Others only got one choice: die.
In the middle of the 20th century, one man decided that some people did not have the same right to life as the rest of us, and argued that such a right should be strictly determined by whether or not a person belonged to a particular religion that he apparently had a strong distaste for. Unfortunately he argued this point very violently, with guns and gas chambers instead of words and logic (most likely because logic was not on his side). When he did take the time to express his views, he gave the following justifications: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord," and "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter...how terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison." Millions of innocent Jewish men, women, and children died because of a mere difference in opinion.
In the first year of the third millennium, nineteen Islamic extremists hijacked four commercial jet liners with the intent to crash them into prominent American buildings and send the world a message. Three planes hit their marks, while one was brought to the ground by a group of heroic passengers who sacrificed themselves to save many others. 2,974 people died, excluding the hijackers. Through the fire and smoke, the message was clear: the western world is not Muslim; the western world is filthy and dangerous; the western world must go.
Since that time, a small, but vocal, group of people who do not subscribe to any religious doctrine and do not believe in any supernatural force or being began to speak out about the potential dangers of religion. In addition to the obvious tragedies described above, religious fundamentalists had been trying for years to halt progress in science, education, health, and civil rights whenever it disagreed with them. In many cases, their legislation passed. For speaking out against this legislation, and trying to gain a little equality in a nation that considered them the least trustworthy out of all minorities for no particular reason aside from a lack of belief in things for which their is no evidence, these outspoken individuals were swiftly stamped with a label that they will not soon shake off: militant atheists.
Along with Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and hundreds of people who I have never met in person but still consider to be dear friends nonetheless, I am proud to declare myself a member of this group which has been so grossly mislabeled. The double standard is blatant and appalling. Consider how far a group of religious fundamentalists must go to be considered anything close to "militant," while we carry the same burden for simply being critical of those unsupported beliefs which are held dear by many people. The Catholic church was not militant until it literally launched a crusade to inflict violence upon those who did not agree with them. The Nazis were not militant until they opened the gas chambers and started marching innocent people inside with guns to their backs. Muslims are not militant until they flew planes into buildings and strapped bombs to their chests. And I was not militant until I opened my mouth and suggested that perhaps belief in God is not the most healthy thing for society.
I have no doubt why such a blatant double-standard exists: in establishing such a double-standard, religious moderates have strengthened the previously existing taboo against critically examining religious belief. For executing my own critical examinations, it was recently suggested to me that I am "at least as dangerous as any religious fundamentalist." I have never been violent towards those who disagree with me. I have never tried to force or even suggested legislation that would make society conform to my own beliefs regarding the dangers of religion. I have simply had an unpopular opinion that I am not in the least bit uncomfortable in expressing; an opinion that is apparently somehow inherently "just as dangerous" as murder by the simply act of mere utterance.
Unfortunately, as long as this taboo exists, the double-standard will survive. I can only hope that people will eventually come to realize that religious beliefs are ideas, and like any other ideas, they are subject to criticism. All ideas should be closely examined and criticized, whether they are your's, mine, or anybody else's. That is how society progresses. We did not collectively accept that the Earth is round by trying not to offend the overly-sensitive people who preferred to believe otherwise. But somewhere along the line we decided that it is impolite to to critically examine belief in God like we did with the belief of a flat Earth. Critical thinking is how we gain knowledge, and until we can get past the delusion that verbally expressing distaste for religion is on par with crashing airplanes into buildings, I'm sorry to say that progress will be slow indeed.
I really like this message, but apparently, the R&Pers at Myspace are too lazy to read.
Discuss what you think about this.
Personally, I think it's very true. Where demonized for having an opinion by some, yet they shrug off the crusades.
In the 12th century after the supposed birth of a man who may or may not have existed, may or may not have been capable of performing magic, and who was probably not white but is portrayed as a white man anyway, the Catholic church began a series of campaigns against pagans, non-Christians, and anybody else labeled as heretics for not agreeing with them, giving thousands of people a simple choice: convert or die. Others only got one choice: die.
In the middle of the 20th century, one man decided that some people did not have the same right to life as the rest of us, and argued that such a right should be strictly determined by whether or not a person belonged to a particular religion that he apparently had a strong distaste for. Unfortunately he argued this point very violently, with guns and gas chambers instead of words and logic (most likely because logic was not on his side). When he did take the time to express his views, he gave the following justifications: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord," and "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter...how terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison." Millions of innocent Jewish men, women, and children died because of a mere difference in opinion.
In the first year of the third millennium, nineteen Islamic extremists hijacked four commercial jet liners with the intent to crash them into prominent American buildings and send the world a message. Three planes hit their marks, while one was brought to the ground by a group of heroic passengers who sacrificed themselves to save many others. 2,974 people died, excluding the hijackers. Through the fire and smoke, the message was clear: the western world is not Muslim; the western world is filthy and dangerous; the western world must go.
Since that time, a small, but vocal, group of people who do not subscribe to any religious doctrine and do not believe in any supernatural force or being began to speak out about the potential dangers of religion. In addition to the obvious tragedies described above, religious fundamentalists had been trying for years to halt progress in science, education, health, and civil rights whenever it disagreed with them. In many cases, their legislation passed. For speaking out against this legislation, and trying to gain a little equality in a nation that considered them the least trustworthy out of all minorities for no particular reason aside from a lack of belief in things for which their is no evidence, these outspoken individuals were swiftly stamped with a label that they will not soon shake off: militant atheists.
Along with Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and hundreds of people who I have never met in person but still consider to be dear friends nonetheless, I am proud to declare myself a member of this group which has been so grossly mislabeled. The double standard is blatant and appalling. Consider how far a group of religious fundamentalists must go to be considered anything close to "militant," while we carry the same burden for simply being critical of those unsupported beliefs which are held dear by many people. The Catholic church was not militant until it literally launched a crusade to inflict violence upon those who did not agree with them. The Nazis were not militant until they opened the gas chambers and started marching innocent people inside with guns to their backs. Muslims are not militant until they flew planes into buildings and strapped bombs to their chests. And I was not militant until I opened my mouth and suggested that perhaps belief in God is not the most healthy thing for society.
I have no doubt why such a blatant double-standard exists: in establishing such a double-standard, religious moderates have strengthened the previously existing taboo against critically examining religious belief. For executing my own critical examinations, it was recently suggested to me that I am "at least as dangerous as any religious fundamentalist." I have never been violent towards those who disagree with me. I have never tried to force or even suggested legislation that would make society conform to my own beliefs regarding the dangers of religion. I have simply had an unpopular opinion that I am not in the least bit uncomfortable in expressing; an opinion that is apparently somehow inherently "just as dangerous" as murder by the simply act of mere utterance.
Unfortunately, as long as this taboo exists, the double-standard will survive. I can only hope that people will eventually come to realize that religious beliefs are ideas, and like any other ideas, they are subject to criticism. All ideas should be closely examined and criticized, whether they are your's, mine, or anybody else's. That is how society progresses. We did not collectively accept that the Earth is round by trying not to offend the overly-sensitive people who preferred to believe otherwise. But somewhere along the line we decided that it is impolite to to critically examine belief in God like we did with the belief of a flat Earth. Critical thinking is how we gain knowledge, and until we can get past the delusion that verbally expressing distaste for religion is on par with crashing airplanes into buildings, I'm sorry to say that progress will be slow indeed.
I really like this message, but apparently, the R&Pers at Myspace are too lazy to read.
Discuss what you think about this.
Personally, I think it's very true. Where demonized for having an opinion by some, yet they shrug off the crusades.