Testing Religion and Offence

Posted By on June 13, 2019

during an interview on a flight to Manila the Pope was asked by sebastian manor of Lacroix Holy Father yesterday during Mass you spoke about religious liberty as a fundamental human right with respect to other religions how far can the freedom of expression extend since the latter is a fundamental human right to a fair question the Pope responded that everyone has the right to practice their religion and can do so without offending imposing or killing apparently Boko Haram and Islamic state didn't get that memo though our species has decided that practicing a religion is a human right and a reasonable expectation of a civilized society is for people exercising their rights to do so without imposing door to door Jesus botherers take note or killing since everyone has the right to life liberty and security of person unfortunately today when you think of consistent sources of human rights abuses they are associated with religions so should the right to practice a religion outweigh of a fundamental human right clearly not and whilst the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has no weightings it's safe to say that this should be valued above this the Pope said that whilst we have the freedom and right to expression we also have an obligation to say what we think to help build the common good and the obligation to do so without offending again reasonable sounding stuff but the Pope then engages in a spectacular contradiction by saying that if his friend dr. Gasparri says something about his mother he can expect a punch for merely uttering an inappropriate remark what happened to not reacting violently saying there are limits is subjective a personal group merely needs to decide watch their own limits off and hey presto the violent response is deemed illegitimate for some handling claim defense by being violent is their norm but isn't acting in the common good in general terms you can only find out that something was offensive after someone has declared themselves offended now an obvious exception to this is if people are habitually offended and you know that something will offend them or at least be met with a claim of offense but then if people are habitually offended they're obviously missing a key life skill the ability to rise above it some two weeks after nutters attacked the offices of Charlie Hebdo protests and violence continued and newspapers in Africa had to apologize to people whose feelings had been heard why are all these people offended ultimately they've been told as part of their religion that they are supposed to be taking offense or claiming to be offended is a learned behavior if any God is all-powerful then there is simply no need for anyone to claim offense on his behalf or to act on that supposed to be on war to revenge his supposedly delicate sensibilities if he or one of his historical agents is offended he is after all a god and more than capable of acting on it himself should he so wish when we look at the number of people subject to violence at the direct hand of angry gods versus those subject to violence at the hands of offended god botherers we see that God's either don't exist or simply much more civilized than their followers if I draw a stick figure and give it a caption suggesting that it's a guy called Barry from Florida nobody gives a crap and if Barry is worth his salt he won't give a crap either if I say it's a guy called Mohammed people start shuffling uncomfortably but if it's simply a caricature of a living guy called Muhammad in which there are many nobody gives a crap with the possible exception of certain elements in Pakistan where throwing away a business card can be enough to get you arrested under blasphemy laws if the owner of the business card was a man named Mohammed hmm extrapolate that kind of thinking for a moment should every letter every note every email ever written by anyone called Mohammed be kept just in case binning shredding or deleting it is deemed to be offensive Pakistan continues to have the most blasphemy cases brought before its courts and in November 2014 a policeman hacked a man to death for allegedly making derogatory remarks about the Companions of the Prophet Mohammed not the Prophet himself merely his chums this was after the man had already been lynched beaten up and then handed to police two days earlier a married Christian couple were beaten to death and burned in a brick oven for allegedly desecrating a Koran and as the case of a co Bibby whose death penalty had been upheld despite global attention and the assassinations of two prominent politicians who tried to help by you know trying to be reasonable Punjab governor Salman Taseer was killed by one of his own security guards and minorities Minister char basmati was killed by the Taliban you don't even need to offend people's religions you merely have to speak out against blasphemy laws laws that also give people at all to abused in personal vendettas if you don't like someone it's easy you just claim they said something blasphemous and in no time you have a mob on your side many of whom believe the law is straight from the Koran and not man-made since 1987 over 1300 people have been accused of blasphemy in Pakistan but the law is irrelevant to some 62 people have been murdered as a result of allegations of blasphemy since 1990 over half of them in the last five years over 50 have been murdered before their trials were over on May the 7th 2014 Rashid Rehman the human rights lawyer for over 20 years was murdered he was defending the university lecturer accused of blasphemy by hardline student groups to be murdered you merely have to accept that people have human rights and that the accused are entitled to be defended meanwhile cuddly fun buns Islamic state object to the rearing of doves and pigeons apparently the pastime is on Islamic why because there are suspicions that the birds are fed at the same time their owners should be having the first of their five daily prayers so rather than say ascertaining if these suspicions have any grounding in reality the only solution is to issue fatwas against the bird breeders abduct them and burn their pigeons it's not just the overt religious fascism that's problematic though the Pope saying that you cannot provoke you cannot insult the faith of others you cannot make fun of the faith is problematic in itself an obligation not to offend leads some people to think that they have a right to not be offended such thinking supports the supposed recipients of offense after all they get to decide whether they were offended or not well that's a scenario that can easily be abused and exploited it gives people a card to play a way of manipulating others to conform to their expectations it gives those claiming offense the ability to impose on others the very thing the Pope's statement about religions not imposing superficially appears to be against the statement that people should go about their religions without imposing is sound in isolation but irreconcilable with simultaneously expecting other people to remain silent lest they offend your delicate beliefs in an imaginary friend that in itself is an imposition of religion on to others if people are easily offended it's not necessarily because something is quintessentially offensive but because they're fragile beliefs can't be defended using reason and evidence coercion is the game religions have been playing for centuries you must respect Church X except that we are now collectively expected to respect tens of thousands of sects but don't even agree with each other let alone respect each other or anyone else in saying that religions ought to be respected there is an implicit appeal to the length of time they have been around religions enjoyed so-called respect out of fear criticize the church and you might well be burned at the stake put on trial for heresy or otherwise ostracized well that craps all goes on today yet we would not be where we are today were it not for people who challenged the false authority of scriptures and those with imaginary friends waving the blackmail cards of eternal damnation or violence the very reason modern-day god botherers have instant access to satellite and cable TV and the internet to hawk their propaganda is because people challenged their dogma and found that we didn't have to spend our days making burnt offerings to a magic man in the sky in the hope of a good harvest remember what we ultimately talking about here adults with imaginary friends it's the end of his interview the Pope said I have the habit when I don't know how things will go of asking Saint tares lease you to help me and show up in the form of a rose I asked for it in this trip too this time she came to me in person Saint arrays of liceo came to visit me in person thanks to Carolina and he was sounding fairly reasonable up until then as well Teressa bliss you died in 1897 so hasn't been doing personal visits for some time religion relies on irrationality it's just a question of how religious and hence how irrational you are meet Terrence the talking honey badger if you're in regular communication with Terrence you're somewhat detached from reality now this may manifest itself benignly some may keep their belief in Terrence to themselves and be an outwardly productive member of society there may be some who believe Terrence is irreproachable and that nobody should utter a bad word about honey badgers there will be those who think you shouldn't say a bad word about any mustelid because they're Terrance's preferred life-forms apparently and they maybe some who think that people who don't believe in Terrence that honeybadger should be confined to a dumpster full of lyin shit for all eternity and that Terrence wants his followers to rid the world of heretics by helping them find said dumpster but these aren't nice neat compartments they're part of a blurred continuum so a question arises in a population of people who think they communicate with Terrence where'd he draw the line as to when their belief is out of hand for the purposes of say anti-extremism laws and where do you draw the line on satirizing them call the imaginary friend God and suddenly none of these people should be offended then their faith should be respected well how do we know that God isn't a talking honeybadger called Terrence how is the claim of one invisible friend in the sky distinguishable from another it isn't all we have to go on are the claims of the people who have those imaginary friends and who are adamant that they're imaginary friend is the right one when we have politicians making decisions to go to war because they have an inner conviction that their imaginary friend wants them to the correct response is to question their sanity and their suitability for making decisions that affect multiple nations if we want to live in a rational society where people make decisions based on objective criteria where people think an act of the common good as the Pope suggests and where sex of those who follow Terrence the talking honey badger let's call them Terre insists aren't trying to blow each other up every five minutes the obvious solution is to stop pretending that it's okay to be special friends with Terrence the talking honey badger to talk to the ceiling or to the floor or to the walls on a regular basis provided that you're not a homicidal maniac every religion has a blurred continuum of irrationality and its followers may move along that continuum in any direction by any amount at any time worse their beliefs are fragmented more irrational on some issues than others no wonder religions are fragmented into sects of different kooky beliefs even individual followers don't occupy a single point on the continuum every sect of followers of Terrence the honey badger think they're reflecting the true religion of Terrence ISM this alone should ring alarm bells because they can't all be right and the chances are that none of them are yet members of each sect somehow believe they just happened to pick the right honey badger Church to go to what are the chances of that there's no reasonable benchmark by which anybody basing their beliefs on the holy book of Terrence the talking honey badger can possibly tell who is following the right interpretation of it and no criteria by which anyone else can tell what true Terrence ISM is the use of the no true Scotsman fallacy by followers of the cuddly fluffy interpretation of Terrence who wish to distinguish themselves from the homicidal lunatics or the placard waving fundamentalists should not be accepted for the simple reason that the maniacs use exactly the same Farsi to claim that moderates aren't true ter insists either if the claim they're not true ter insists holds no water coming from the murderous factions it should fool nobody when a moderate appears in the media playing the same card following the latest demonstration of uncivilized behavior made in the name of the same religion in a courtroom setting being one of a bunch of witnesses all presenting different versions of events and all claiming that their version is true gets you well on way to being discredited or regarded as unreliable and so if we try and get asymptotic to reality and making the best decisions we can we should treat religious claims in the same way the only sensible outcome is to regard the holy book of Terence that honeybadger and any other holy books as unreliable and incredible and to turn instead to trying to understand reality as best we can and to make decisions based on demonstrable evidence particularly when the only evidence they have ever been able to offer amounts to nothing more than sophistry and word games not one is willing to communicate with their God and provide some new piece of knowledge that solves a long-standing problem not one is willing to demonstrate their God's existence by calling in a favor and temporarily overcoming fundamental physics under controlled conditions what they all do have however is a collection of convenient excuses to declare only extremists violent religious beliefs as unacceptable and only tackling extremism is a flawed approach addressing only murderous nuts overlooks the negative effects of non violent fundamentalists those intent on undermining educational and political systems those who want their choice of creation myth talkers science to the detriment of basic science education and basic broad consideration of the hundreds of other available creation myths religion X is never quite so keen to teach the controversy about the creation myths of other religions though so as soon as someone promotes a cause on religious grounds you know they're promoting a biased position this of course is why creationist Christian shysters continue to try and obfuscate their chosen creation myth by calling it intelligent design pretending that they're not really a bothered about which creator actually did the designing but of course they are then of course there are the people who think the Sun goes around the earth because the Bible says so and then there are the likes of this public school in Louisiana subject to a lawsuit claiming a long-standing custom policy and practice of promoting and inculcating Christian beliefs after an Asian student became the subject of harassment by staff a so called science teacher repeatedly taught that earth is 6,000 years old and that the big book of Christian bullshit is 100% true science tests included questions such as isn't it amazing what that has made where was the expected answer is the Lord a science esa when the child's parents objected the parish superintendent suggested that the child should change his faith or transfer to another school where there are more Asians the district is now required by court order to refrain from unconstitutionally promoting or denigrating religion which presumably means no more Bible verses plastered at the gate and no pictures of Jesus in the entrance hall fundamentalists can and will impose their bullshit beliefs on others given half a chance were we to take the Pope's claim that these people's beliefs cannot be mocked or offended then tacit approval is given to their society toxic behaviors the notion that religious people are only problematic to civilization when they're violent is flawed as is any idea that every mild a religious expression of faith is worthy of automatic respect by legitimizing the concept of having an imaginary friend in adulthood and crying no true Scotsman as soon as someone uses the same holy books and the same imaginary friend to justify extremism moderate theists continue to provide a population and a foundation of irrationality from which more unhinged views can build we need them to turn their backs on their imaginary friends to understand that they don't need them and that having imaginary friends in adulthood is not a rational thing to be doing if we want a rational society that constructively deals with problems if people can abandon their religions the never-ending game of my sky daddy's better than yours will be called out as the childish bullshit it really is you

Posted by Lewis Heart

This article has 24 comments

  1. It's not Gods plan to have people killed. It was the corrupt Churches, and their followers that was killed people in the name of God. All of these anti God leaders and followers are now burning in Hell for their sins.

  2. my family used to impose their faith on me and thats funny because I was the offensive one according to them 😀

  3. For many muslims (and a growing number of Christians, namely the "Evangelicals in the USA) the freedom of one's religion and to exercise its rules by killing others.

  4. You offended me, I actually like honey badgers lol, Terrance understands that it is a eat or be eaten world and didn't need a book or fuktard liberal to explained to him why using the great huge teeth and powerfull jaws he was born with to eat whatever he so pleases is wrong, nor do I think he feels bad about eating the cute puffy bunny that didn't think it was neccesary to run from the angry black rat because jeebus says he has a right to live.

  5. In another video I learned that the quran literally demands to punish those who don't believe in Allah. I've tried to find the exact point in which an according text was cited but I was in a bit of a hurry and didn't find it, so feel free to go find it by urself:


    This being the case it's apparently the very terrorists causing all the harm all over the world who are actually doing what the quran says and the peaceful muslims are those who are either oblivious to such writing in the quran or reject it coz they've got at least SOME common sense.

    But don't worry, muslims, islam ain't the only religion that should be dumped, there's more than enough reason for any other religion to be dumped aswell!

  6. This problem has stopped being about religions decades ago, when centuries of science, philosophy and fierce criticism of religion (to Christianity, to be more specific), started to pay off. The only black hole, the real menace that the whole world never EVER criticizes, the religion whose follower literally "submit" to their invisible dictator, that dictates their lives in a manner so despotic it may recall a slave master, controlling their dress code, socialization, their eating, their private actions in their bedrooms… The religion that legally mandates your death if you leave, that makes your own family kill you for being an atheist and saying out loud that "God does not exist"… The elephant in the room is one and only one, and it will destroy us all if we keep protecting it from every criticism.
    Islam will never, NEVER evolve without critical thinking, and critical thinking is impossible with the shield of PC culture that silences every critical reasoning whatsoever!!!

  7. There's only one true God!!!!!!!!


    Flying Spaghetti Monster!!!

    Who sometimes appears as Q in Star Trek….

    Fear him! Or you'll end up in a spaghetti sauce…..
    Don't say i didn't warn you…..

  8. "Blasphemy for throwing away a business card of a dude named Mohammed"


  9. Rising above it sounds nice but if someone walked up to you and called you an ugly b*tch Cold sou really just ignore him without a second thought?

  10. I'm not a conspiracy theorist but the 911 attack looks very fishy to me.
    The problem is that it is impossible to talk about because people gets offended because "people died".
    The truth is that people died of the aftermath. The people who died when the first plane collided are very few, most people died because the incompetence of dealing with the attack: nobody tried to stop the other planes, nobody was evacuated until too late (the people in the second tower tower for example were told to stay in the office).
    And finally the collapse was not part of the plan … or was it?
    Larry Silversteen said "they had to pull building 7" that means it was planned months before, you can't "pull" a building down just by looking at it.
    So, atheist or Christians, everybody has issues with dealing with own feelings when somebody oppose their beliefs.

  11. My religion doesn't have a creator god and has core tenets of extreme nonviolence. I also keep it to myself, other than the above basic defense.

    I blame Judaic faiths for poisoning the well.

    I recall a nun talking to me outside of a grocery store when I was still three or four. She wanted me to answer a few questions, the one I recall went like this:

    Which one of these things did God not create: An apple, a tree, a shopping cart.

    I, using what logic I had at that age, chose the apple. She asked why, seemingly offended, and I told her I didn't know where shopping carts came from, but I knew the apples came from trees. She admonished me for my blasphemy.

    Obviously, apples come from trees. I now, thankfully, also know where trees and shopping carts come from. I don't know why predatory nuns were outside my local Albertson's when I was three, though.

    I use my religion, which teaches me not to believe in it, prosthelytize it, or judge others for not believing in it, as a personal refuge against the ceaseless sorrow I find in the irrational loss of life I find around me.

    I accept that it simultaneously may be fake, but that it is real enough to me to provide meaningful benefits.

    Sadly, there are those who use it to cause irreparable harm, but they break the most basic vows a practitioner must take in doing so.

    Thereby I do think I have merit to categorize it separately from the ones you mention and to which you address your concerns.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *