Thunderfoot on Psalm 23: ‘The Lord is my Shepherd’

Since early childhood, my husband (whose family was raising him to be a Christian) was deeply disturbed by this very metaphore:  that God is the Shepherd and we are his sheep.  He cites it as one of the earliest times he can remember that he began to have doubts about the religious stuff he was being taught.

His thinking was along the lines of:  what does a shepherd do with his flock?

Well, he protects them from predators (not always well – just puts in the minimum effort for maximum result), but not because he loves the sheep.  Rather, he makes a living out of treating sheep as a commodity, to be fleeced, milked, traded as ‘stuff’ and eaten.  This, even as a child, he thought was very, very ugly….

Thunderf00t expresses similar thoughts on the “The Lord is my Shepherd’ metaphore:

Pat Condell: ‘The Criminal Truth’

‘Free Speech on Trial in Europe’

This is a must-read article from Hudson New York by Soeren Kern.

It is impossible to paste a just little excerpt here that would be representative of the whole article, because the article itself is a long, sad and, frankly, frightening list of all the anti-free-speech trials that have been taking place in Europe lately.  I recommend just popping over and reading the list – no fluff there, just the facts.

‘Freedom of Religion’ is a wonderful thing – but, to be perfectly honest, I do not see how everything one needs FOR practicing one’s religion freely and unhindered – but without infringing on the rights of others – is not already covered by some of the other ‘core freedoms’:

  • Freedom of Speech
  • Freedom of Thought
  • Freedom of Association
  • Equality before the law

It seems to me that there is nothing contained within ‘freedom of religion’ which is not already an integral part of the other ones – so, it is, in a way, a redundancy to list ‘religion’ among the core freedoms as a separate item.

Not that we should not have ‘freedom of religion – rather, that it is already implied in the others and re-stating it can not in any way be beneficial.  Rather, whenever things are redundantly re-stated, people will tend to read into them things which were never intended.

As in, it leads to abuse.

As it has, with claims of ‘religious discrimination’ by people who are merely offended by the very existence of any criticism of their religion.

Not being able to criticize something – whatever that something may be – is dangerous.

Deadly, in fact.

Because it infringes on the CORE freedoms – especially the ones I listed above:  freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of association and equality before the law.

Let’s just look at that last one:  equality before the law.

Because it is unlikely that all people will, all of a sudden, share the same beliefs and opinions.

If everyone is equal before the law, then they are all permitted to believe what they wish and speak it freely, whatever the other people may think of it.

However, if we interpret ‘freedom of religion’ to mean that saying things that are critical or disparaging of that religion – not the practitioners, mind you, but the religion itself – then we have created ‘blasphemy laws’ which put one set of beliefs above another’s criticism.

And that is NOT equality under law.

I know, I am repeating some very, very basic things. But, lately, it seems to me like more and more of us are forgetting the basics…

Like, what  ‘equality before the law’ actually means.

Unless we remember, it will be our undoing.

AndromedasWake: ‘Messages for Muslims’

Thunderfoot: ‘The problem with Religion’

Pat Condell: ‘American Islamophobia’

In case you don’t know what Pat Condell means when he says that our fear of Islamists in NOT irrational, please, listen to the following video:

 

If only the guy in the second video were the only lunatic who advocates violence in the name of Islam, if only he were not the only one advocating to replace secular law and order with Sharia, then, perhaps, fearing his message could potentially be called a phobia.

Unfortunately, he is not!

And there are Muslims who fear lunatics like this – with good reason.  Religious extremists always attack the moderates within their own movement first, to better cow the rest and assure their own control over their co-religionists.

And, since the Islamists think that the only consequences of their actions will be rewards in heaven, they are not easy to dismiss.

So, exactly how many ‘hate-crimes’ against Muslims are occurring in the US, to require CAIR to fight this wave of Islamophobia?

Well, in the State of New York, in 2008 there were 8.  In 2009, there were 11.

Which makes for about 1.6 % of the incidents.

Now, don’t get me wrong – there is no excuse for violent crime, whatever its motivation may be.

But those 11 incidents of attacks on Muslims for their Muslimness seems fewer than the number of attacks by Muslims on others for their non-Muslimness…

About

H/T: Gates of Vienna

Pat Condell: ‘Godless Christmas’

OK – I am a little late posting this, but it is still the Coptic Christmas day today, so perhaps I can be excused…

Pat Condell: ‘Free speech in Europe’

Pat Condell: ‘God or Nothing’

It keeps baffling me just how many people are either unable or unwilling to grasp the difference between ‘not believing something’ and ‘believing in something else’.

A non-deity centered example of this would be, say, the question:  do you believe that my mother has ‘naturally blond hair’?

Never having met my mother – and therefore not holding an opinion on the topic of her hair colour – seems the most obvious and logical position.

Yet, to have some people explain it, not having any opinion on the topic either way somehow implies a belief that her hair is NOT naturally blond – or even that it is ‘naturally red’!

Like Pat Condell, I find the suggestion that a ‘belief’ should be treated with respect similar to or greater than ‘fact-based reality’ actively offensive!  Whether that belief is religious or secular, it is a belief – a notion (perhaps deeply held, but a notion none-the-less).  It must never be afforded the level of respect that the anti-blasphemy movements demand.

No, I will not deny them the right to believe whatever they want to.  It is their right to believe whatever they wish.

But it is NOT their right to demand that I, you, or anyone else respects their beliefs and goes around pretending that just because they believe something, we must all behave as it it were true!

Yet that is exactly what the UN’s new anti-blasphemy laws demand…

Now, couple the religious beliefs with political ambitions and you have a recipe for oppression – of the worst kind.

 

 

Pat Condell: ‘Drunk on Religion’

Not that long ago, I wrote a post because I was frustrated about the inaccurate use of the terms ‘agnostic’ and ‘atheist’.

In the comments following the post, JR and I got into a bit of a discussion on this topic:  JR insisted (at least, that is my understanding) that even though he considers himself an agnostic, he’d rather toss his lot in with theists than atheists.

In my never-humble-opinion, Pat Condell’s video (though it stands perfectly well on its own) makes an excellent addition to this discussion.