Archive for April, 2010

South Park shows Mohammed in bear suit, ‘warned’ of retaliation

April 21, 2010

So Trey and Matt are at it again, courting controversy as only they can do. The gist of this incident is that posted a warning for the show’s creators (apparently), citing ‘We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them’.

Quite obviously the face of evil.

Wow, how nice of them! Just to help persuade them, they also posted a gory photo of Theo van Gogh (great films, took on Islam’s treatment of women, got dead). But only as a sincere, heartfelt warning, guys!

My particular beef with this incident (be assured, one of many) is the that was used. ‘What they are doing is stupid’. Deliberately setting out to satirise a religion may be offensive, tactless, insensitive, provocative, and insulting (not to mention ballsy, impartial, reasonable, appropriate and hilarious), but it is not stupid. It would be the same as warning people that driving a car is stupid because there is a chance of death. People accept this as a course of nature that death is a part of life.

Perhaps what they should have said to the people who read their site is that it would be stupid for anyone to kill people for making a cartoon. ‘But it’s offensive!’ I hear you say? Simple. Don’t watch it. In a world of diversity, there will always be something to offend you. This is also a fact of life.

But you know what? I am offended. I am offended that people who make a cartoon may have their lives threatened. I am offended that Theo van Gogh was killed for exposing the violence some Muslim women experience. I am offended that there will be otherwise rational, intelligent people that will decry Matt and Trey for being so ‘insensitive’ as to infer that an 1,100 year old man plays dress-ups. I am offended for humanity that in the 21st century this could still be considered a just reason for execution.

It is our turn to be offended, and we MUST let the world hear that rational people will no longer stand idly by while violence and discrimination destroys the greatest parts of our human society.

In the immortal words of George Orwell, ‘if liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear’.

In all its offensive glory.

We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show,” the posting reads. “This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.”

Dawkins and Hitchens seek to charge Pope

April 12, 2010

That’s right people. Richard Dawkins (The Greatest Show on Earth) and Christopher Hitchens (God is Not Great) have hired a team of lawyers to see if it is possible to charge the Pope for his involvement in the cover-up of child abuse allegations. They are looking at his September visit to Britain as the time for an arrest, confident that his lack of diplomatic immunity (UN doesn’t consider the Pope a proper head of state) will make him susceptible to Man’s Law.

At least no one can accuse them of not thinking outside the square!

Apologies to Darius for my punchline. I’m apparently more plagiarisey than I am witty tonight.

A respectful descent into rationalism.

April 10, 2010

I am continually surprised at how otherwise intelligent, socially aware people have such a limited knowledge of religious discourse and its impact throughout history and indeed upon contemporary society. When probed, the majority of people will start uttering clichés, typically from the dare I say trendy relativist camp that ‘people can believe what they want’ and ‘I don’t judge people and they shouldn’t judge other people and we all should treat each other with respect’. While these are obviously fabulously Utopian expressions, would either of these sorts of responses quench our desire when involved in political discourse, or discussing the role of social activism or the inequalities plaguing war-torn Africa?

What needs to be understood is that it is imperative that we care about other people’s beliefs, as these shape how they see the world, and are the basis of all actions. It is of the utmost importance that we are able to rely on our elected officials (not merely politicians, but those that represent us in the workplace or social situations) ability to act rationally and to work through problems and challenges logically.

The likely cause of this is the taboo against criticising religious beliefs, something viewed as a personal affront due to the embarrassing situation that occurs in our society (and quite rightly) when one cannot lend credence to their beliefs.  Imagine you confronted your boss resolutely demanding not only a promotion, but that it would be an unbelievable slight against your character to ask for evidence to support this demand. While it may be easy to dismiss this analogy, it is only on reflection that we realise that it is because we have been conditioned to accept that unlike all other discourses, it is in bad taste to talk critically of religion.

I do not propose unfair slandering of religion, no more than any other subject receives when in heated debate. But it is incredibly difficult to have a respectful debate when at the slightest hint of rain one person grabs their ball and bat and goes home.

All hail the new flesh!

April 10, 2010

As I have been incredibly busy of late I haven’t had a chance to upload any more blogs, so in the interest of keeping this site active and possibly increasing the audience base I would like to offer an opportunity for any questions regarding or ‘perfect proof’ of religion to be posted and I will respond as best I can. I cannot do this without some sense of ego as I wish not to only win some converts but also keep my teeth sharp, as it were. Any topic is welcome, from substantiation of miracles and Biblical scripture to evolution. Just keep it intelligible people, and no large copy-and-pastes – make sure you understand the arguments.