You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘The DWR Sunday Religious Disservice’ tag.
The radical form of Islam being preached in Afghanistan (and other places) is a symptom of the upheaval and chaos that is endemic of the region. With no security, no law and no justice, it is who has the biggest gun makes the rules. Currently the radical followers of islam occupy that role and the repression of women is the cornerstone of their particularly warped take on the religion of “peace”.
We recently received a comment on a similar post about the insane ass-backwardness of Islam, and religion in general, decrying the lack of respect and tolerance for religion and religious practices.
“While I have little respect for religion I have too much respect for the people that do practice it to support a Draw Mohammad Day, or for that matter a Piss on a Crucifix Day. It just seems like another opportunity for otherwise sane progressive people to join with the far right in attacking Muslims.”
This seems to be a fairly mainstream progressive opinion. Fairly wrong as well, but wrongness aside, the comment lends insight to one of obstacles progressive thinking needs to overcome when arguing the issues. Our opponents, usually people who sponsor socially regressive policies (pro-death penalty, anti-abortion, anti-socialism etc), decry progressive positions (for a myriad of BS reasons but I’m making a point here about cultural relativity and ‘tolerance’) because of the lack of an absolute moral position. Because progressives usually are not as xenophobic, racist or intolerant as regressive voices the progressive position is framed as being a moral willy-nilly free for all that permits all behaviour because it is believed that morality and the behaviour that stems from said behaviour is based on the society and culture being viewed.
Cultural Relativism (CR). CR is great in small doses, but should not be used as a basis for moral judgments because human societies are capable of cruel despicable laws/customs that by deontological standards, are atrocious. Allow me to cut off the boilerplate religious response to my admission that CR is heavily flawed when it comes to making moral judgments by saying that a supreme being in any form is not necessary for the formation of a moral system. We can make moral judgments without divine guidance or literacy in irrelevant ancient texts by using our reason and intuitions alone (see Utilitarianism and Deontological Moral systems).
In the video included in this post women, housed in their burka cloth prisons, are risking their lives for the simple act of attempting to become literate. They face persecution and death simply because they wish to free themselves from the torpid ignorance which is religiosity. So can one simply say that the cultural practice of cloistering and oppressing half the population merely because they have the double XX chromosome is a good one because we must only judge societies by their own intrinsic standards?
The argument is a gross simplification of what CR is, but some progressives seem to endorse the idea that tolerance means we have to condone the reprehensible actions of others because it is “OK” in their society. Basing your morality on any one system is a recipe for moral failure as all systems have inherent flaws that can amplify human suffering if taken as gospel.
The problem with morality is that, by nature, it is inherently complex and comes with many layers of conflicting values and ideas that must be judiciously weighed before coming to an (often unsatisfactory) answer. Regressives have little time for complexity and depth of thought and often adumbrate easy moral solutions based on unrealistic binary models.
So, to address the issue raised in the video clip, yes it is morally and functionally wrong to prevent women from becoming literate and educated. One must look at the problem not only through the prism of the CR analysis but also Utilitarian and Deontological moral systems. If all societies were to adopt the fundamental tenets of Islam would people be better off? Does the system promote great amount of utility for individuals and society? When cast in the light of a multifaceted moral analysis a moral stance can be taken that is nuanced and guided by rational thought (rather than musty rules from a magic a book). The system (delusional religious belief) that encourages such egregious misogynistic cultural practices must therefore be criticized for promoting such a view of women.
Finding contemptible religious people saying horrible things on youtube is not a difficult task. This particular individual is all over his Sky-daddy allah and how women need to be beaten so they can quickly learn their place and proper behaviour within Islamic religious society.
We can dispense with any notion of Islam (christianity, judiasm etc.) being the religion of peace and harmony. Oh certainly this man may be a crank and not represent the “true faith” but does this lessen the horror of what he is saying? We have our share of absolute cranks here in North American, but we are protected from their delusional insanity because of the secular tenets of our society.
In countries that do not share the same dedication(?) to rationality the damage these people can do is significantly multiplied.
Teaching the controversy is a catch phrase that people should be aware of. Firstly, it usually prefaces a false equivalence between two topics, for instance, evolution versus creationism. Evolution is a explanatory theory supported by a large body of factual evidence. Creationism, on the other hand, is a mythology made up by ignorant people and handed down through the centuries to keep the feckless from asking too many questions. The positions are most certainly not equivalent in any sense of the word an thus, are not comparable, lest you wish in Physics class to postulate that invisible elves are responsible for making pool balls move a the precise angles they do when struck.
One of the reasons that religion still clings to humanity, not unlike a pesky fungal infection, is that parents teach their children the religion they themselves have been brainwashed with. The true believers really do not have an answer to the problem posed as thus: If you were born in India you would here arguing for Vishnu and the primacy of the Hindu Pantheon of Gods as a opposed to Zombie jesus and talking snakes. So the determining factor of the ‘one true faith’ has much to do with where you were born as opposed to which mythology you intend to internalize.
Feckless claims of the ‘one true religion’ aside, the real problem is that children do not have a chance to gain their critical faculties before being dogmatically ‘educated’ into a particular delusional sect of belief. The ritual poisoning of children’s minds needs to stop as it can have quite disastrous consequences.
Observe the chilling conclusions when you start believing in magic and fairy tales.
The religious often have the notion that somehow they are favoured and they are special because they believe in a particular brand of religious horseshit. This particular belief once examined, leaves only the smell behind.
Some of the barriers to reasonable debate and argument are showcased in this darkmatter 2525 video. It is a touch on the long side, but necessarily so because the double standards are so darn numerous.
At least we can be happy, the Evil Atheists usually have better hair.
Faced with debating the scientifically ignorant, one needs only to resort to the facts of the situation to settle an argument, especially with Creationists who seem to have their own special versions of Cosmology and Physics that do not exist outside the realm of their imaginations.
As per wikipedia: The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system. From the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, the law deduced the principle of the increase of entropy and explains the phenomenon of irreversibility in nature. The second law declares the impossibility of machines that generate usable energy from the abundant internal energy of nature by processes called perpetual motion of the second kind.
How people think that they can make a coherent argument based on this law (or misrepresentation of said law) is beyond me; but, as the video below clearly shows for others, it is a mere walk in the delusional park.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…