Universal intolerance
CNN today has an article describing a disturbing situation in Egypt. “Thousands of Muslims” rioted outside a Christian church because of the distribution of a DVD recording of a play that occurred at the church two years ago. Apparently the DVD is offensive.
Irregardless of what makes the DVD offensive, I think that it is absolutely ridiculous that people would riot over it. I’d be upset too if local churches were distributing items that were against my beliefs, such as anti-secularism propaganda. However, who am I to say what other people can believe in? All these people fighting over religious beliefs is like children arguing over toys, “I touched it first!” Logic, reason, and sharing are all thrown out the window.
Its one thing when a government forces religion (especially a specific one) upon it’s people, but this is just like two neighbors bickering over who’s grass is greener and winding up in a fist fight.
6 Responses to 'Universal intolerance'
Leave a Reply
on November 2nd, 2005 at 5:05 pm
It should also be noted that an Atheist commenting on matters of faith is like a Man commenting on the pain of childbirth.
-Solid
on November 2nd, 2005 at 5:26 pm
It should be noted that a religious person denouncing an atheist’s views on the basis that they’re an atheist is the same argument that was used against women before the 19th amendment.
on November 3rd, 2005 at 9:42 am
that would be a Spiritual person not religious. Right now I do not even belong to a fellowship of any faith, unless you can consider me and my wife a congregation. So be the 19th ammendment, women were told they could not vote because they did not acually believe there were canidates? that would actually be an acurate comperison… if it made sense.
on November 3rd, 2005 at 10:53 am
One of the arguments used against women having the right to vote was that, “they’re women, they have no place in politics so why should they have the right to vote?” It is an obvious logical fallacy and completely ignores the fact that the primary reason why women were not in politics was because they couldn’t vote in the first place.
I’m not saying your argument is a perfect parallel, but it certainly rings the same chime.
Also, your statement, “women were told they could not vote because they did not actually believe there were canidates” makes no sense whatsoever and screams of a Chewbaca defense. If I were to take that sentence and reverse it (since it is supposed to be an equivalent to my statement), it would be, “an atheist was told he could not comment on religious affairs because he does not believe there are religions.”
To prevent further confusion I will state that I *do* believe there are religions in the world. I’d also like to point out that all this garbage about it being a religious matter is bullocks. My post was about two groups of people arguing over what I would consider “speech”. The event in question lead to a considerable amount of violence and rioting.
Regardless of what the “speech” was about, the action of these Muslims was unacceptable. I think most religious texts are full of absurdities and that indoctrinating people into these beliefs is, in an abstract kind of way, poisoning their minds. However, you will never see me resort to violence as a form of protest (unless my right to be free from religion is somehow taken away =).
When fighting a battle of tenets, a civilized man will arm himself with logic and reason. These weapons, when wielded by a true believer, can defeat the greatest of armies and overcome the most powerful of tyrants.
“A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled one is truly vanquished.” -Friedrich Schiller
on November 3rd, 2005 at 12:13 pm
> If I were to take that sentence and reverse it (since it is supposed to be an equivalent to my statement), it would be, > “an atheist was told he could not comment on religious affairs because he does not believe there are religions.â€
You are misinterpretting what I said originally. I never said atheists have no place commenting on religion. I said atheists have no place commenting on matters of faith since they have none.
The bottom line is that violent people will always be violent and will use whatever excuse they deem necessary.
on November 17th, 2005 at 5:19 pm
Solid stated “I said atheists have no place commenting on matters of faith since they have none.”
these sort of statements denying people freedom of speech just proves to me that not having faith in any sort of dogma is the right thing to live by.