Here's the culprit, in case you have no idea what I am talking about:
Easily.
Now some of my objections may seem superficial or facetious at first, but bear with me.
First, the stickers themselves seem to me to be intolerant to start with - how many religions are there and how many are represented in the sticker? If the idea was to promote religious understanding then why pick the three usual suspects to the exclusion of all others? Why not include Sikhism? Zoroastrianism? Jainism? Is the sticker saying that only the three big ones don't get along? Is it saying other religions don't matter, or was it being lazy for the sake of brevity? The latter being the case then wouldn't picking more obscure symbols from more obscure religions that people actually had to research have served better for furthering the intended message? Are the religions represented in the different versions of the sticker the only ones that have to coexist? How does that promote religious tolerance of all religions?
Second, is it just me that thinks that the idea that religions coexisting will make everything better is hopelessly naive and deluded? Different religions not getting along is not really the problem, the problem is religion itself. As Voltaire said:
As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.
Different faiths coexisting and understanding each other does not get rid of the oppression of women, the suppression of science and learning, the mutilation of children's genitals, the oppression of homosexuality, the suppression of human rights, institutionalized child abuse, the denigration and suppression of sexuality, the state torture and punishment of criminals as advocated by different religions, religiously supported apartheid, religiously supported slavery, religiously mandated 'honour' killings, etc etc.
I don't want to tolerate religion and neither should any other sane person, I want religion in its entirety to fuck off and die a quick and final death.
Just imagine how much more oppressive and interfering religions could be if they could concentrate more on enforcing their own tenets rather than attempting to butcher or convert the other lot. And all along, instead of fighting it tooth and nail with all our strength, we are expected to tolerate and understand it. To coexist with it.
Bollocks to that.
Religion is the root of the problem, tolerating religions does not fix it. Tolerating religions allows the problem to continue to exist and attempts to suppress the criticism for the sake of touchy feelly "Why can't we all just get along?" happiness. That's a delusion that solves nothing.
Just to emphasise my point of how silly this call for coexistence is, I have some questions for those who support the idea of religious tolerance and the coexistence stance.
Just exactly how far does your tolerance of the tenets of religion go? Just exactly how much are you willing to allow for the sake of religious tolerance and freedom? For the sake of coexistence?
If there is just one aspect of one religion you won't allow, then how are you being tolerant of religion? How are you allowing religious freedom?
How do you coexist with something you are fundamentally opposed to?
How do you coexist with something you are morally obliged to stand against?
People should be allowed to believe what they wish, but like all other stupid, repugnant or immoral beliefs, religion should not be tolerated. Instead, it should be fought until, like other superstitions and outmoded beliefs, it dies in the minds of every person and humanity shakes of the shackles imposed upon it by imaginary gods.
Coexistence is not the answer. Tolerance does not solve the problem.
Tolerance is the problem.
The call for tolerance silences dissent, suppresses criticism and gives religion a status it does not deserve. Religion is no more deserving of tolerance than Nazism, but you won't see swastikas on a coexist sticker anytime soon.
Beliefs do not need to be tolerated, people do. Beliefs do not have to coexist, people do. That's what calls for religious tolerance miss.
Voltaire never did quite finish the thought for me, when he wrote that now well worn phrase:
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
For me this should read something along the lines of:
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. And I'll continue to mercilessly point out how utterly ridiculous what you say is until it finally gets through and you give it all up for something more thoughtful and productive.
First off, i agree that this bumper sticker is silly and naive. Your first comment is a tad superficial, but no matter. Your second argument starts in the right direction, but unfortunately does not dig deep enough. That men are asked to tolerate religious beliefs is not really the problem, but that men are compelled by their very nature to look for something greater, divine what have you, is where the problem needs to be investigated.
ReplyDeleteWhy are men religious? To me, this phenomena originated from man's self-aware nature. Early men first came to appreciate themselves in in a world driven by greater forces, nature, and thereby came to worship these forces. As time went by, and as men discovered more and more ways to conquer nature, his self-aware nature transcended from worship of nature to worship of man through the apotheosis of other men- prophets. This was a very convenient segue for his campaign of justification as he came to dominate the globe. Also convenient is that most men are not very bright and stumble in whatever direction they are told. That brings us to today, where our leaders use their self-elevated importance as Men, literal children of God, to lead the mindless masses.
Coming back full circle, religions are of geographic and cultural origins, and hence we have many differing, contradictory, and antagonistic religions out there. This brings us back to notion of tolerance. Men like to think well of themselves, and in doing so we Westerners use pleasant and timely words such as tolerance. Tolerance is not a ubiquitously fashionable term, as our Muslim friends readily demonstrate. In fact, they almost seem to champion intolerance as religious policy. This leaves an unpleasant taste in Western ears, but an argument could be made that Muslims are being honest with human nature through their expression of intolerance born of xenophobia. We talk of xenophobia as an iniquitous affair, as a trait that might be human, and with the fairy tale logic that by acknowledging its potential existence man can shed this nasty little inclination as if it were a T-shirt. No such luck, as wishing ourselves to be other than what we truly are is an ineffectual policy for moral guidelines, religious dogma, and legislative policy.
Man needs to accept the truth before any of this nonsense will ever be fruitful. We need to come to accept the truth, that we are incongruously biological, social creatures endowed with a superior intelligence and an abstract and abstruse capacity for self-awareness. This combination, when ignored by the thinking creature, is bound to lead to behaviors and endeavors that will only cause strife, discontent, and atrocity. Merci beaucoup.
Genruk of BadNatured
I will write more when I have finished work, but that was a lot of pretentious twaddle and baseless assertions.
ReplyDeleteDerek:
ReplyDeleteYour first comment is a tad superficial
I know it seems that way, at first. That's why I said:
Now some of my objections may seem superficial or facetious at first, but bear with me.
The point was not the seemingly superficial nature of aesthetics in the symbols chosen, but that the ones chosen highlight the sort of typical religious bias and ignorance the designers of the sign were patronisingly telling others to avoid. Hardly superficial, if you think about it.
That men are asked to tolerate religious beliefs is not really the problem
Yes, it is. I wrote a whole post about why I thought so and everything.
that men are compelled by their very nature to look for something greater, divine what have you, is where the problem needs to be investigated.
Rubbish, since that compulsion is what also drives science, art and literature as well, the compulsion or where and when it comes from is not the problem. Looking for the divine is a part of searching for something greater, unfortunately it is what has grown around certain aspects of searching for the divine that has become a problem - religious beliefs and then the political opportunism that feeds on them.
The problem is not that humanity searches for something greater or divine - it is that some parts of humanity declare their own particular findings sacred and ultimate and then expect everyone else to tolerate it, or else. Which was my point. Declare you're right all you want, just don't expect anybody else to have to tolerate it, they're just beliefs.
Why are men religious?
I'm sure you're going to tell us.
To me, this phenomena originated from man's self-aware nature.
And your proof is? This is idle speculation of the kind that gets right up the nose of this historian - there is no way of knowing, but you declare that's how it is, as do a great many others. We don't know how/why religion originated, and this just happens to be the guess currently in vogue.
Early men first came to appreciate themselves in in a world driven by greater forces, nature, and thereby came to worship these forces.
Guesswork. You, and others, have no possible way of knowing this. Asserting it doesn't make it so, and it ignores the evolutionary arguments for the origins of religion.
As time went by, and as men discovered more and more ways to conquer nature, his self-aware nature transcended from worship of nature to worship of man through the apotheosis of other men- prophets.
More guesswork. Has all religion followed this path? Where's your evidence? Why don't the great apes have religion if self awareness is the only requirement? The evolution of religion in society has had far more to do with biology, culture, war and politics than it ever has with man's evolving sense of self, to state otherwise basically ignores everything we know about history and what we are beginning to know about some areas of biology.
In short, you're talking bollocks.
This was a very convenient segue for his campaign of justification as he came to dominate the globe.
See what I mean.
Continuing:
ReplyDeleteThat brings us to today, where our leaders use their self-elevated importance as Men, literal children of God, to lead the mindless masses.
Although not you, obviously. You're far to smart for that, no doubt.
Men like to think well of themselves, and in doing so we Westerners use pleasant and timely words such as tolerance. Tolerance is not a ubiquitously fashionable term, as our Muslim friends readily demonstrate. In fact, they almost seem to champion intolerance as religious policy.
Nice bit of casual Islamophobia. The Qu'ran preaches tolerance, doesn't it? So is it religion, or something else? And why pretend that Christian fundamentalists are any less intolerant than "our Muslim friends". Are you saying all Muslims are intolerant? A pretty vile stereotype and generalisation, wouldn't you say? How much of this alleged intolerance is down to politics and culture rather than religion, at the end of the day? I'm sure you can answer this, since you've given it so much thought and aren't just rehashing other people's ideas.
We talk of xenophobia as an iniquitous affair, as a trait that might be human, and with the fairy tale logic that by acknowledging its potential existence man can shed this nasty little inclination as if it were a T-shirt. No such luck, as wishing ourselves to be other than what we truly are is an ineffectual policy for moral guidelines, religious dogma, and legislative policy.
You really are full of shit.
Where and what is your proof that xenophobia is a naturally occurring trait within humans ("what we are") and not something that has been developed as an off shoot of culture and society? Where is your proof that little white babies instinctively hate little black babies? Or proof of little British babies instinctively disliking little Dutch babies? Come on, put up or shut up. Where is your proof that xenophobia is anything but cultural attitudes and that cultural attitudes cannot be changed?
Man needs to accept the truth before any of this nonsense will ever be fruitful.
What truth? Your baseless assertions and guesses? No thanks.
We need to come to accept the truth, that we are incongruously biological, social creatures endowed with a superior intelligence and an abstract and abstruse capacity for self-awareness.
How can we be social creatures if we are naturally xenophobic creatures? Do these two positions of yours not seem just a teeny bit contradictory? (Yes I am aware of what the word 'incongruous' means, but we cannot both be biologically afraid of/prone to hate others and biologically social creatures - that's not incongruous, it's impossible).
After making the mistake of reading your blog post about feudalism I can see history isn't your strong point, so this could be funny.