Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Anti-religious dogma is not the same as racism or misogyny

Drawing false parallels, stretching metaphors, and general misinformation is the foundation for a lot of [obviously poor] arguments.

A few months ago there was a quasi-controversy about the choice of blogger for the John Edwards campaign. Basically, the blogger, on her PERSONAL website placed this quote as a preface to one of her posts:
Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.
There was much discussion about it at the time in the political blog world. I continually saw justification for her firing amount to nothing more than "her religious ["]intolerance["] is not any different than racism or misogyny". I say screw that. Personally, I found this hilarious. It pretty well sums up what she thinks about this particular religion, and, therefore, what slant you are getting when you read the rest of the post.

General skepticism for religious dogma and using language to show you don't appreciate the use of said religious dogma as an avenue to pass asinine laws is not even close to hating a specific group of people who have no choice in the matter. "Being black" or "being white" is not something you choose to do. Likewise with gender (this is where I acknowledge that transgender human beings exist, but generally speaking, one does not choose their gender). I can see a slight argument that a religion, in most cases is not chosen, but a religion can be chosen (and in my opinion, SHOULD be chosen, hence why I favor keeping religion out of the classroom), and therefore the merits of the argument of said religion can, and should, be debated endlessly.

To dismiss attacks on any religion, regardless of how offensive they might be, based on the language alone shows nothing more than fear of debating the actual merits of the argument. One should be able to look past any scattered f-bombs and get to the heart of the matter, otherwise, one will eventually become a recluse (or a Mormon) if they avoid everyone that drops an f-bomb every so often.

For some banter between myself and a person who condemned her comment and thought the blogger should have been fired because of something she says on her very own personal blog (and something which was a throw away joke at the beginning of the post for that matter), go here, or here, or here. I even included the ones where I make an ass of myself. But I think my point comes across as well as it can with the language we have available to us...

Also, this topic is quite dated, but I don't really care. I wanted to do a post about my anti-religious viewpoint and this is the best way to speak to it.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Anti-religion? Then I think there is prejudice, matey. You choose not to have a religion so you are therefore on a quest of anti-religion? Does this make you an anti-zealot?

I have no religion but my own, but that does not qualify me as being anti-religion. To each their own as long as it does not interfere with my non-religion religion.

Your anti-religion religion is the radical right of the Non-Religious Non-Conservatives.

mikebdot said...

"To each their own as long as it does not interfere with my non-religion religion." Is this not the same position as my position? Are you now prejudiced against those which would like to interfere with your anti-religion religion? No, that would be absurd. Prejudice doesn't mean "I disagree with your positions because I don't think they benefit mankind, in fact I think they do a disservice to my fellow man". It means you pigeon-hole people immediately and argue against the strawman that you have created in your mind when talking to said person. That being said, I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with having certain prejudices, especially if you don't really take them seriously and have a sense of humor about the absurdity of your own views, because, let's face it, most personal ethos can be ridiculed endlessly, especially prejudices.

Calling my view on life "[My] anti-religion religion" defeats the whole purpose. It's like the kids that all get tatoos and piercings and wear black to be an anti-conformist.

I won't deny there are kindred spirits who have similar views to my own, but I don't necessarily want to tap those spirits for my own personal use or to further some agenda, I just want people to realize that we exist and we are generally good people.

Anonymous said...

"It means you pigeon-hole people immediately and argue against the strawman that you have created in your mind when talking to said person. That being said, I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with having certain prejudices..." Way to take a non-stand! If you remove the cloak of evil that has been draped across the shoulders of the word "prejudice" you get "opinion". So now I am trying to determine, if, based upon what you replied with, is that you agree with me or you do not agree with me. Because I think your prejudice (i.e. opinion) is that folks that are religious and base some/many/all of their prejudices (i.e. opinions) on that religion creates some cloud of absurdity that surrounds them and you cannot fathom or respect where they are coming from.

We are all individuals inasmuch that we have different DNA. My point of calling your anti-religion religion WAS to defeat the purpose and shine a little light on the absurdity we all inject into our lives by pigeon-holing, typecasting and being far too judgmental of others than we should be of ourselves.

I am as guilty as hell of this and am working to be less this way. Unless it works as a good punch line.

mikebdot said...

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, only defending my right to ridicule or seriously challenge religious thought and not be fired from my job because of it, even if that job were working for a political campaign or being a political candidate. The media does a terrible job "holding people accountable" for actions that don't require accountability. Some actions don't matter at all.

I respect a person's beliefs when I feel those beliefs are in good faith, but if I make the judgement that they are not then I'll point it out any time I'm asked or have a reason to or am trying to be amusing.

It's very difficult for someone to convince me to eat a shit sandwich, even if they claim to think they're selling you roast turkey with mayo, mustard and pickles (I hate pickles and mustard too though, so perhaps the metaphor is too strained).

I don't think there is anything wrong with pigeon-holing, but the second you try to make friends with me or have some sort of relationship or convince me of something, you better turn all that off and offer me a bit of respect (the royal "you", not you specifically). That is something I struggle with as well, but it's not a novel struggle I'm sure.

chripostrophe said...

back to a point here...

does making personal statements warrant firing? this is a pretty critical issue, because its a free-speech argument. can a private institution, independent of government, make any stance against the spoken views of an individual outside of their scope of professional life? absolutely not.

however, once that individual is representative of the institution, or is to be seen as one by proxy (i.e. the CEO or another title where the individual and the occupation are inexplicably intertwined), it can be fair to say that the views of the institution rule over those of the individual. i mean, shit...you (royal) chose to work there didn't you? if you knew they were assholes and wouldn't tolerate your George Carlin-style humor, why did you apply?

My second point, is that folks on the inter-web feel they can say whatever they wish and get away with it...like no one can track them down or something. Look, blogs ARE free-speech, except when they are not. That includes the aforementioned examples, and when your language is so jesus-dick-sucking-fuckface-wife-beating nasty that it gets moderated. so don't get pissed when it happens to you. if you want free speech, and you want to [re]write the pornographic bible, get your own damn blog (right mB?)

that is all...